jira_field_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: output format (YAML), special handling of schema_type and schema_custom fields for custom fields. No mention of authentication or side effects, but as a read-only list, the disclosed details are sufficient.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by output format and useful field semantics. No filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, filtering, output format, and key field interpretations. Could mention error cases or pagination if applicable, but not necessary for such a tool.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'search' parameter. Description adds no additional semantic value beyond summarizing the filter behavior, but is consistent with schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'JIRA field definitions', with optional filtering by name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_field_options which likely deal with field values, not definitions.

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?

Provides context about output format (YAML) and CLI equivalence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.

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