get_create_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. Every part adds meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns, and the output schema covers return values. However, it could explicitly mention that the parameters filter the fields for a specific project and issue type.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters. While 'project_key' and 'issue_type' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description only implies they filter fields by project and issue type, adding minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 fields for ticket creation, specifying details like IDs, names, required flags, schemas, and allowed values. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings which deal with pages, repos, tickets, etc.

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 implies usage when creating a ticket, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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