Get legal field values

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

The readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations already cover the safety profile, and the word 'Get' aligns with them. The description adds the notion of legal values and search usage but does not explain behavior for include_inactive or whether the returned set is exhaustive/open-ended.

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 front-load the action and scope, provide useful examples, and end with a practical usage note. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only enumeration with two parameters and no output schema, the description tells an agent what it returns (legal values) and why to call it (building precise searches). It could mention how inactive values are handled, but the overall context is adequate.

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 'field' parameter is already documented in the schema and the description reinforces it with examples and custom-field guidance. 'include_inactive' is not described beyond its name; because schema description coverage is only 50%, the description contributes only marginal extra meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('legal values for a bug field') and enumerates representative fields plus cf_* custom fields, making the tool's role as a metadata lookup distinct from sibling retrieval/search tools.

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?

'Useful for building precise searches' gives a clear context and implies using this tool before composing search_bugs queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use is evident.

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