Get Project Fields

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint true, and the description adds meaningful context about the create schema and deduplication across issue types. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the exact nature of the returned fields, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the deduplication nuance, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and the annotation readOnlyHint, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it. The clarification about create schema and deduplication rounds out the necessary context.

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 only parameter, project_key, is fully described in the schema with an example, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the simple single-parameter case.

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 fields available on issues of a project, specifically the create schema, and clarifies deduplication across issue types. It distinguishes from related tools like jira_get_create_fields and jira_search_fields by emphasizing project-level and deduplicated scope.

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 gives clear context about what this tool returns, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_create_fields or jira_search_fields. The phrasing implies project-level field discovery, but lacks direct exclusions or alternative guidance.

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