jira_list_fields

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only operation (listing fields) and explains the output's purpose, which adds value. However, it does not disclose details like required authentication, data volume, or potential pagination, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states the core action, and the second provides immediate usage context. No superfluous words; every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description sufficiently explains why and how the tool is used, linking it to the workflow of other Jira tools. It is complete for the given complexity.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining that the output consists of field IDs for use in other tools, which is valuable context beyond the schema. Baseline 4 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 'Lists all available Jira fields (standard and custom).' It specifies a concrete verb+resource and distinguishes itself by mentioning how the output is used by sibling tools like read_jira_issue, list_jira_issues, and jira_update_issue.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover field IDs you can pass as additional_fields to...' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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