jira_field_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions auto-discovery of the first context and that returns are in YAML format, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error scenarios, though 'List' implies non-mutating behavior.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential behavior (auto-discovery, output format) without waffle. The CLI mirror reference adds a small amount of context without significantly bloating the text.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format (YAML), and important context behavior. It lacks explicit permissions or error handling, but those are not essential for a straightforward read/list operation. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the auto-discovery behavior is already stated in the schema for context_id. No further parameter guidance is provided.

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 'List allowed option values for a JIRA custom field', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_field_list (which lists fields) by focusing on option values of a single custom field.

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?

It implies usage when one needs to know the allowed values for a custom field, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The behavior with omitted context_id is described, which aids usage, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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