jira_get_create_meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds some detail about showing required vs optional fields, types, and allowed values, but lacks auth or rate limit info. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by detail and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains what is returned (fields, types, allowed values). It could be more explicit about the scope per issue type, but it is fairly complete for a read-only tool with only two parameters.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description aligns with the schema but does not add new semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 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 the tool retrieves create metadata for a project, showing all available fields including custom fields. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_issue_types and jira_get_custom_fields by being project-specific and focused on issue creation.

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 says to use it before creating issues, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is strong so it earns a 4.

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