jira_field

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that 'full: true' applies to read actions and is rejected by mutation actions. However, it does not clarify which actions are mutations (likely none) or confirm the tool is read-only. The explanation is somewhat unclear, leaving ambiguity about behavior.

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 a single paragraph with clear action enumeration. It is reasonably concise, though it could be more structured with bullet points. Every sentence adds value.

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 and no output schema, the description explains the action enum and 'full' parameter well. However, it does not describe return formats for each action, and several parameters are only explained for one action (createMeta), leaving other actions unclear.

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?

Only the 'full' parameter has a schema description (14% coverage). The description explains actions and notes parameters for createMeta, but other parameters (projectIds, projectKeys, etc.) lack meaning for other actions. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 explicitly states the tool lists Jira metadata, enumerating specific types (fields, issue types, priorities, statuses, resolutions, createMeta). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_issue or jira_project which deal with individual entities rather than metadata.

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 defines specific actions (list, issueTypes, etc.) and explains the 'full' parameter's behavior. It implies when to use each action, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use jira_field vs jira_project).

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