jira_field_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns YAML and explains the meaning of schema_type and schema_custom fields, adding useful behavioral context. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects, 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the output format details are valuable.

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 at three sentences, with the core function first. The CLI mirror reference adds context but is not strictly necessary; the schema_type explanation is valuable. Overall, it is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though the CLI mention could be considered a minor extra.

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 is quite complete. It covers purpose, filtering, output format, and key field semantics. It does not mention potential pagination or large response sizes, but given the tool's simplicity, this is not a significant gap. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'search', including its case-insensitive substring filtering semantics. The description's mention of 'filtered by name substring' adds no new parameter information; it simply restates what the schema says. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List JIRA field definitions' with an optional name substring filter. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like jira_field_options by focusing on field definitions rather than option values. The additional detail about returning YAML and explaining schema fields further clarifies the 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 description provides clear context on the tool's use (listing field definitions, optionally filtered by substring) and even mentions a CLI equivalent. However, it does not explicitly discuss exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use jira_field_options instead. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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