jira_get_fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds scope context (plugin fields included), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether it includes custom fields beyond plugins. Adequate but limited beyond 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?

Two short clauses with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded before the use case. Efficient and front-loaded, though extremely terse.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers what is returned at a high level and its primary purpose (obtaining field ids). No output schema exists, so the return shape is only implied, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List every field') and adds a distinguishing scope note ('plugin-provided ones included'). It is clearly separable from metadata siblings like jira_get_issue_types or jira_get_priorities, though it never names them. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use it to obtain field ids' gives an implied usage context, which is helpful. It does not state when not to use it or point to a named alternative among the many metadata tools, so guidance remains thin.

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