Get issue create metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it uses current per-project metadata endpoints rather than the deprecated query form, and explains the request-bounding behavior of projectKeys and the trade-off of expanding fields. It could mention response shape or permissions, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second delivers the key conditional usage guidance. No filler, no repetition of schema text, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 metadata lookup tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can learn and how to bound its request. It stops short of describing the exact response envelope or authentication requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only discovery tool and no annotations or output schema exist to fill the gap.

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 covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dependency between projectKeys and expand, noting that omitting projectKeys is acceptable only when expand=projects.issuetypes. This clarifies a condition that the schema hints at but does not fully rationalize.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Discover') and resource ('valid projects, issue types, and their fields'), and frames the purpose as preparation for issue creation. It also distinguishes the tool from deprecated endpoints, which helps the agent recognize this as the current metadata-discovery mechanism rather than a generic lookup.

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 gives clear usage context: use it before creating an issue. It also provides conditional guidance on projectKeys and expand, explaining when to pass projectKeys and when it is safe to omit it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when to choose this over create_issue or get_issue.

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