jira_field

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavior of the full parameter and that mutation actions reject it. Lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but is adequate for a read-only metadata tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear intro and bullet points for actions. It could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing, but it is front-loaded and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, actions, and the full parameter. It does not explain return data structure or error cases, but is reasonably complete for a metadata listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 14%. The description adds meaning for the action parameter (lists enum values and their purpose) and the full parameter. Other parameters (projectIds, etc.) are only mentioned briefly under createMeta, leaving most undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists Jira metadata (fields, issue types, etc.), which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_project by focusing on configuration metadata rather than entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the full parameter and that mutation actions reject full: true. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, e.g., for retrieving actual issues use jira_search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.