Jira: List Fields

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential size of output, or rate limits. For a listing tool, stating it is non-destructive would be helpful.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core functionality and API endpoint; the second provides a concrete use case. Every part earns its place.

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 it's a simple list tool with good schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, resource, and use case. It could mention that the output contains all fields (limited by filter) and that it's read-only.

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 input schema already describes both parameters well (case-insensitive filter, optional schema metadata). The description adds overarching context ('including customfield_*') but does not enhance meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 action ('List') and the resource ('Jira fields including customfield_* from /rest/api/3/field'). It provides a specific use case ('map friendly names to field IDs'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools are mostly issue/comment operations, so it's reasonably distinct.

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 a concrete use case ('use this to map friendly names to field IDs'), which guides the agent. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need field details by project) or provide alternatives.

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