get_issue_custom_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation and hints at return content (custom field values and field IDs), but does not disclose the exact response format, error handling, or whether all custom fields are returned, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, direct sentence with a helpful parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 only one parameter and no annotations, the description is concise but not fully complete. It lacks details on the response structure and edge cases, though the 'discovering field IDs' hint partially compensates. The absence of an output schema means more descriptive depth would be beneficial.

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 100% and the schema already provides a clear definition for 'issueKey' (e.g., CCOE-12345). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and identifies a clear resource ('custom field values from an existing issue'). Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like custom_query, the focus on custom fields is distinct enough to convey the tool's purpose.

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 parenthetical '(useful for discovering field IDs)' provides a clear use case, implying this tool is for inspecting custom field metadata before performing issue operations. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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