jira_issue_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the output (issue types and field details) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any prerequisites, side effects, or auth requirements. The verb 'devuelve' implies read-only, but more explicit transparency would improve the score.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence is necessary and conveys essential information efficiently.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fairly covers the return values (identifiers, names, required, data type, allowed values). It does not explicitly describe the format of the issue type list when issueType is omitted, but the schema fills that gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states it returns issue types and their fields for a Jira project, with details like identifier, name, required status, data type, and allowed values. This is a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('issue types and fields'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_get_issue.

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 advises using this tool 'antes de crear un issue' (before creating an issue), providing clear context. It implies the tool is for introspection and planning, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like jira_create_issue.

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