Get Create Fields

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what data is returned (required/optional fields, names, IDs, schema) and mentions using a separate tool for field options. While it doesn't disclose exhaustive details like rate limits or pagination, it provides sufficient transparency for a read-only metadata lookup.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the purpose, describe the output, and provide an alternative for options. Every sentence earns its place, avoiding redundancy and unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what parameters are needed, what it returns, and how to handle a related use case. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both project_key and issue_type_id well-documented. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it reinforces the parameters' role in the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Get fields available for creating an issue of a specific type' and details what is returned (field names, IDs, required status, schema). It distinguishes itself from the sibling jira_get_field_options by instructing to use that tool for field options, ensuring clarity among similar tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by naming jira_get_field_options as the alternative when a returned field needs allowed values. It also implies the primary use case (when preparing to create an issue) without ambiguous context, making it clear when to use this tool versus others.

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