jira_issues_get_createmeta

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

The description discloses that the tool is a read-only metadata retrieval (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation). It outlines the different behaviors based on the optional parameter and gives a return format overview. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: six lines covering purpose, two modes, usage hint, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information, no redundancy.

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 metadata retrieval tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, how to use it (with prerequisite guidance), and the shape of the response. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Input schema has full coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the functional impact of including/omitting issue_type_id and the resulting return structure, going beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 purpose: getting metadata for creating issues. It distinguishes two modes based on whether issue_type_id is provided, and explicitly mentions using it before jira_issues_create. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like jira_issues_create or jira_issues_search.

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 guidance: 'Use this before jira_issues_create to understand required fields.' It explains the two usage modes (with/without issue_type_id). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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