get_project_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists fields with status and values, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or any constraints beyond the basic function. Score is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is brief: one sentence for purpose, one for usage hint, and a simple parameter list. No fluff. Front-loaded with key information. Efficient and clear.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and usage. Could arguably mention potential output size or field details, but given tool simplicity, this is complete enough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value: 'project: Project short name' clarifies that the project identifier is a short name, and 'instance: YouTrack instance (optional)' explains the optional parameter. This is slightly better than the schema alone but does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

Clear verb 'List custom fields for a project' specifies the action and resource. The phrase 'with required status and available values' adds precision. The sibling context shows many issue-related tools, but this tool's unique purpose is field discovery before issue creation, which the description explicitly states.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this before create_issue to discover required fields and valid values,' providing a concrete workflow step. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage guidance is strong.

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