jira_project_get_schema

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

The description indicates the tool returns field schema including custom fields and validation rules, which implies a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it is clear and sufficient for this type of tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and adding key details in the second sentence. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It could be slightly more specific about the output's structure, but the output schema handles that.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by mentioning 'custom fields and their validation rules', which goes beyond the schema.

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 the tool retrieves the field schema for a project and issue type, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('field schema'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like issue creation or comment 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?

The description mentions 'for debugging' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is provided.

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