jira_get_create_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the two distinct output modes based on the issue_type parameter and summarizes the return content ('Issue types list, or field details (name, required, allowed values)'). This goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name, though it does not mention potential errors or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the purpose, the second explains the two call modes, the Args list clarifies parameter formats, and the Returns section sets expectations. No fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and the two call modes. It could be more detailed about the exact structure of 'field details' (e.g., whether IDs are included), but for a metadata retrieval tool with only two parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It also covers both parameter modes, which is the main complexity.

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 description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage. It explains both parameters with examples (project_key: 'OCPBUGS', issue_type: 'Bug') and describes the effect of omitting issue_type. This gives an agent complete understanding of how to fill the arguments, which is far more than the bare schema provides.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'metadata for creating issues', and further specifies the two modes of operation (listing issue types vs. retrieving field details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue, which perform actual creation, and jira_get_issue, which retrieves existing issues.

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 explicitly instructs when to call with and without the issue_type parameter: 'Call without issue_type to list available types. Call with issue_type to get field requirements.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know this is the metadata lookup companion to jira_create_issue. It could have explicitly stated 'Use this before creating an issue' but the context is implied.

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