list_reference_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations by flagging that custom_fields and groups are '(admin only)', i.e. an authorization requirement for specific kinds.

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?

Two compact lines with no filler, framed by the purpose clause before the enumeration. Efficient and front-loaded, though the parenthetical admin notes could be tidied into the list more cleanly.

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 single-enum-parameter, read-only reference lookup with no output schema, the description covers what data is available and the admin caveat on two kinds. Annotations handle safety, so nothing critical is missing, though noting the return shape (list of id/name pairs) would round it out.

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 carry the burden, and it does enumerate the kinds the single 'kind' parameter accepts (statuses, trackers, priorities, activities, categories, custom fields, queries, roles, groups). It also adds per-value qualifiers ('admin only') that the bare enum values do not convey.

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 identifies the tool's content precisely (IDs and names of reference data for filters/changes) and enumerates the nine kinds, distinguishing it from activity siblings like list_projects or search_issues. It lacks an explicit leading verb ('List'), so it reads more as a content inventory than an action statement, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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 phrase 'needed for filters and changes' implies the use case — fetching IDs/names to feed other operations — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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