Get Issue SLA

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: calculations can be filtered to working hours, and the behavior is governed by five named environment variables including timezone — something an agent cannot learn from structured fields. It stops short of explaining default fallback order precisely or whether unconfigured metrics error out.

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?

Purpose and metric list are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the configuration block follows as a scannable bullet list. The env-var list is long relative to the tool's own behavior but each line is concrete and non-redundant, so nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description covers configuration and default metrics, leaving only the gap of sibling disambiguation against jira_get_issue_dates and how missing status/changelog history is handled.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by tying working_hours_only to the JIRA_SLA_WORKING_HOURS_* environment variables and timezone, explaining where the parameter's default actually comes from — meaning the schema does not provide. It does not elaborate on the metrics list beyond what the schema already enumerates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate SLA metrics for a Jira issue') and enumerates the computed metrics (cycle time, lead time, time in status, due date compliance), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, jira_get_issue_dates, which could plausibly overlap, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — the description says what it computes but never says when to prefer it over jira_get_issue_dates or jira_get_issue, nor does it state prerequisites (auth, issue visibility). No exclusions or alternative routing are given, which is the minimum-viable level.

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