jira_get_issue_field_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds context about retrieving editmeta and returning a simplified mapping, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or error behavior. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, no repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers what it returns (simplified field ID/name mapping), how it works (via editmeta), and when to use it. Minor gaps around error behavior, but overall complete.

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 already fully describes the parameter with an example, and the description adds no extra semantics beyond referencing field IDs and names. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 'Get all field IDs and their corresponding names for a specific JIRA issue', specifying the exact resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling field-related tools by emphasizing the issue-specific context.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario ('Use this when you need to discover what fields are available for a specific issue'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This is close to explicit but lacks exclusions.

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