get_issue_fields

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds value beyond the annotation by disclosing the shape of the result (fields with their types and options) and the practical purpose of the returned ids, which the annotation does not convey. It does not discuss pagination or result size, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads what is returned and then the reason to call it. No filler, no repetition of the name, every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so at a high level (fields, types, options). It omits any mention of ordering, size, or whether pagination applies, which is a minor gap for a discovery tool but not a blocking one.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless global listing and introduces no phantom inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all global issue fields (standard and custom)') and names what is returned (types and options). The word 'global' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling scope variants like get_queue_local_fields and the singular get_issue_field, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 clause 'useful to discover field ids for filters, create and edit operations' gives clear when-to-use context tied to concrete downstream tasks. It stops short of naming the alternative (get_issue_field for a single field) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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