jira_get_create_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates a read-only fetch and describes the output contents, but it does not mention what happens when the optional parameters are omitted, potential error conditions, or authentication needs. This leaves notable gaps in transparency.

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 sentences plus an API link, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. The second sentence provides usage context but is somewhat redundant with the first, so it is concise without being maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by detailing the response structure. It offers a high-level overview but does not explain behavior when both parameters are omitted or clarify differences from a similarly named sibling. The API doc link helps but does not fully close the gap.

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 schema already achieves 100% coverage, clearly describing both parameters as comma-separated lists. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 creation metadata and field configurations' with specific details about custom fields, required states, and allowed values. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling jira_get_create_issue_meta_fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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 says it is 'required before creating an issue,' which gives clear context for when to use the tool. But it offers no exclusions or alternatives, such as when to prefer the sibling jira_get_create_issue_meta_fields, making the guidance only partially explicit.

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