get_create_metadata

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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some context about what metadata is returned, but lacks behavioral details beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and elaborating with specifics in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and outputs. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what metadata is returned but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or usage prerequisites. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to cover operational context, but it meets minimum viability.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('projectKey' and 'issueType'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Get field requirements and metadata for creating issues in a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('field requirements and metadata'), and lists what it shows ('required fields, custom fields, and allowed values'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_issue' or 'get_issue' beyond implying it's for metadata before creation.

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 implies usage context ('for creating issues in a project'), suggesting it should be used before 'create_issue' to understand requirements. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., not for actual creation or issue retrieval) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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