Get Issue Fields

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

The description discloses the discovery mechanism (fetching a sample issue, merging omitted fields, caching with metadata TTL), which adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). No contradictions.

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 three paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but each sentence provides relevant detail.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (field names), how it works (sample fetch + merge + cache), and usage context. Considering no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing the single optional parameter 'project_id' to scope the sample issue fetch. The description does not add significant parameter detail beyond schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns field names valid for the 'select' parameter of list_issues and get_issue, distinguishing it from sibling tools by its specific role as a helper for constructing select strings.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before constructing a 'select' string, ensuring only existing fields are requested. While it doesn't list alternatives, the usage context is clearly defined.

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