jira_get_create_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it lists both available and required fields, which goes beyond the annotations and matches the read-only nature.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose and scope. It could mention that the fields depend on the issue type, but 'para projeto e tipo' already implies this dependency.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely references 'projeto e tipo' without explicitly mapping to projectKey and issueTypeId or adding format/value guidance. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb (Lista) and a precise resource (available and required fields for creating an issue), scoped by project and issue type. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_search_issues.

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 clearly states the context: retrieving fields needed when creating an issue for a given project and type. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use the tool, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate usage.

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