Get Form Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that it uses the new Jira Forms REST API and that the payload includes an ADF design structure, which matters for downstream parsing. It does not mention any rate limits or permission requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The API-version sentence earns its place, but 'Uses the new Jira Forms REST API' is somewhat incidental framing rather than actionable information.

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 and annotations are rich, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, the tool requires a form UUID and the description never says where that UUID comes from (jira_get_issue_proforma_forms), which is the one piece of missing routing context an agent needs.

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%, with both issue_key and form_id documented in-schema including examples. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (get details for a specific ProForma form) and clarifies scope versus the listing sibling jira_get_issue_proforma_forms by saying 'a specific ProForma form'. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it already has both an issue key and a form UUID and needs the form's contents. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no pointer to jira_get_issue_proforma_forms as the way to obtain a form_id.

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