Get Issue Development Info

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

The description states it retrieves development panel information from connected source control systems like Bitbucket, GitHub, or GitLab. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds context about the types of systems and data returned without conflicting with annotations.

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 well-structured with a brief summary followed by expanded details and structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted sentences.

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 covers all key aspects: it specifies what is retrieved (PRs, branches, commits, repositories), mentions connected source control systems, and includes a Returns section. Since an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's Args section repeats schema info but adds examples for application_type and data_type. This provides minor additional guidance beyond the schema.

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 'Get development information (PRs, commits, branches) linked to a Jira issue.' It specifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'jira_get_issues_development_info' (plural), though the singular vs plural naming implies it's for a single 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 usage for retrieving development panel info from connected source control systems but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, 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.