get_case_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by describing the return format ('fields with their types and options for dropdown fields'), which is important since no output schema exists. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only metadata 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by parameter guidance and return value information. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return format. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without needing to inspect other sources.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds normative guidance beyond the neutral schema text, telling the agent that project_id should normally be provided and that omitting it is rarely desirable. This meaningfully shapes parameter usage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the field schema for test cases for a specific project.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_case, get_cases, and resolve_case_field, which deal with case data rather than field metadata.

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?

Gives explicit guidance on when to provide project_id versus omitting it, including the normative warning that omitting is 'rarely what you want.' It does not name alternative tools or conditions for using them, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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