Get Issue Forms

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating form IDs are UUIDs and the return type is a JSON string. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 structured with a one-line summary followed by Args/Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is concise without unnecessary detail, though it could be slightly more terse.

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 has one parameter and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately explains input, output, and basic behavior. It lacks error specifics but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and a single well-described parameter (issue_key), the description adds minimal value beyond restating the parameter purpose. Baseline expectation is met.

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 retrieves all ProForma forms for a Jira issue, using the specific 'ProForma' term and referencing the 'new Jira Forms REST API,' which distinguishes it from other Jira-related tools among the siblings.

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 the API type but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over the sibling jira_get_proforma_form_details. It lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving differentiation implicit.

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