jira_field_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'returns' a mapping table but does not elaborate on side effects or limitations beyond what annotations cover. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the three key modes of operation without needing to document return values or parameter details already present in the schema. It is complete for the tool's 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?

Schema_description_coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context for the main parameters: 'Supplying project_key adds create metadata' and 'Supplying issue_key adds edit metadata'. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions and helps the agent understand how arguments affect behavior.

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: 'Build a mapping table for Jira field IDs, names, schemas, and editability.' It is specific about the resource (Jira fields) and action (build mapping table), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_search_issues by focusing on field metadata.

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 clear usage scenarios: with no arguments for global catalog, with project_key for create metadata, and with issue_key for edit metadata and sample values. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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