Get all fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is a listing action with no side effects, and that custom field IDs are included. It does not describe response shape, pagination, or authorization needs, but for a zero-parameter read-only metadata listing this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the useful detail about custom field IDs. There is no wasted text or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter schema, absence of annotations, and simple listing behavior, the description is almost complete. It covers what the tool returns conceptually and the scope. The only minor gap is the lack of any note about response structure or field metadata details, but this is not essential for a simple listing 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?

The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all issue fields'), and adds the important nuance that custom field IDs are included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_types or get_issue_create_meta, since it is explicitly about the full set of issue fields in the Jira instance.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving field metadata across the entire Jira instance, which is a distinct use case from sprint, epic, issue, or project operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over get_issue_create_meta or list other metadata, nor does it state when not to use it.

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