list_global_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and fails to mention that this is a read-only action, caching behavior, response format, or any potential side effects or limitations.

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 a single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is perfectly concise for a simple listing tool and all words contribute meaningful information.

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 straightforward read-only nature of the tool, the description is largely sufficient. The input schema thoroughly documents parameters and the presence of an output schema covers return values. The only gap is a lack of any caveat about potentially large result sets, but this is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds no parameter information, but the input schema thoroughly documents each parameter, including examples and defaults.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'global issue fields', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_field_categories or list_queue_fields. It unambiguously states the tool's function without ambiguity or tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a read-only listing operation but gives no context about when 'global issue fields' is the appropriate scope, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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