Get Cross-Project Dependencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavior beyond that — it is a scan-and-filter operation, not a direct link lookup, and results are grouped by target project and link type. It stops short of warning about scan cost or what happens when the issue count exceeds the scan cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the mechanism, then a one-line use case. Three sentences and a purpose clause with no filler; slightly longer than strictly necessary but every element contributes.

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?

With an output schema and complete annotations, the description needs only to explain the operation, which it does well for a two-parameter tool. The one real gap is truncation semantics: it never says whether scanning stops at max_issues, whether results are then partial, or which issue statuses are included.

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 both parameters (project_key with pattern, max_issues with range) are fully documented in the schema. The description only indirectly motivates max_issues via "scans issues" and adds no format or default details beyond the schema — baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: "Find all cross-project issue links for a project," followed by the exact mechanism (scan issues, extract links whose target is in another project, group by target project and link type). This makes it clearly distinct from link-management siblings like jira_get_link_types and jira_create_issue_link, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Useful for dependency analysis across multi-project Jira setups" implies the intended context but never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. jira_get_project_epic_hierarchy or a jira_search with a JQL link clause), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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