search_mojira

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields but does not mention behavioral details such as case sensitivity, pagination behavior (page parameter is in schema but no explanation of results per page), authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but with 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and return fields, the second adds filter options. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and filter options. Missing details like default page size or result set limits, but for a search tool it is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions filtering by project, status, resolution but does not explain the query parameter's format beyond what the schema already provides (minimum 3 characters). No extra semantics for page or enum values.

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 searches the Mojira bug tracker and lists the returned fields (issue key, URL, summary, status, reporter, assignee, creation date). It specifically names the resource (Mojira bug tracker) and the action (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_wiki which search a wiki.

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 mentions filter options (project, status, resolution) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_wiki. However, the context of bug tracker vs wiki is implied. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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