jira_get_fields

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which is helpful given no annotations. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or output behavior beyond the schema. It meets basic transparency but does not fully compensate for absent annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is completely adequate. It explains why, when, and what the tool does, requiring no additional context.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and use case for resolving custom field IDs. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 it lists Jira field metadata to resolve custom field IDs, specifies it is read-only, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue by focusing on metadata discovery.

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 advises to run once per instance during setup and provides example use cases (Sprint, Epic Link, Story Points), clearly implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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