Get Issues Development Info

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context about the type of data retrieved (PRs, commits, branches), but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or other behavioral traits.

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 Args and Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose. It could be more concise, e.g., by removing the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels since the schema already provides parameter details.

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 an output schema (though not shown here) and annotations, the description covers the main functionality: batch retrieval of development info. It mentions the optional filters and return format, which is sufficient for moderate complexity.

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 description adds minimal value. For example, it says 'List of Jira issue keys' while schema specifies 'Comma-separated list', which is clearer. Overall, the description largely paraphrases 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 the tool retrieves development information (PRs, commits, branches) for multiple Jira issues. It explicitly mentions batch retrieval, distinguishing it from the singular sibling tool jira_get_issue_development_info.

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 batch usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like jira_get_issue_development_info. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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