jira_get_create_issue_meta_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns customfield IDs, data types, and required flags, and claims high performance. It does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or pagination details, but for a read-only metadata fetch, the description gives reasonable transparency about what the user will discover.

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 sentences with a supporting API link. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage guidance and distinguishes from an alternative. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 metadata fetch tool with no output schema, the description explains the key output (field IDs, types, required) and the workflow context (before create). It lacks details on startAt/maxResults behavior, but those are covered in the schema. The API reference link adds completeness. Could mention error cases, but overall comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of the output (customfield IDs and types), which indirectly ties to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches field configurations and custom fields for a specific project and issue type during creation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing granularity for a specific project/issue type and explicitly naming the deprecated global getCreateMetadata endpoint as an alternative.

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 directs the user to run it 'before invoking `jira_create_issue`' to discover required fields and types. It also tells the user this is a 'highly performant and granular alternative' to the deprecated global endpoint, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool instead of that one.

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