jira_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists included return fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, response size limits, error behavior, or whether the optional fields parameter affects the returned structure beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists representative return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a low-complexity read tool: it explains the input (key), the scope (single issue), and the output categories. Since there is no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value context, and it provides enough orientation for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits error/permission details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both issueKey and fields. The description adds the issue key example and mentions some returned fields, but it does not meaningfully expand on the optional fields parameter beyond the schema's own explanation.

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 full details of a single Jira issue by key, with a concrete example (PROJ-123). This distinguishes it effectively from sibling tools like jira_search_issues and jira_update_issue.

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 implies the correct context: use this when you already have an issue key and need complete issue details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'single issue by key' framing provides clear guidance relative to search-based siblings.

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