Jira MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation from an external API, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what specific forecast data is returned (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and source. The second sentence provides the critical parameter format requirement with an example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, external API call) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter format adequately. The main gap is the lack of sibling tool differentiation, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 description adds crucial meaning beyond the input schema. The schema only shows a 'location' parameter with type 'string' and 0% description coverage. The description specifies the required format ('latitude,longitude') and provides an example ('47.7623,-122.2054'), which is essential for correct usage. This fully compensates for the schema's 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves weather forecast information from the National Weather Service API for the specified location.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('weather forecast information'), and source ('National Weather Service API'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (get_alerts, get_forecast), which likely provide related but different weather data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_alerts, get_forecast). It mentions the location format requirement, but this is more about parameter semantics than usage context. There's no indication of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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