Get Project Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it — but it adds nothing beyond that. Worse, 'Get all issues' implies complete retrieval while the schema defaults to limit=10 with a hard maximum of 50, so the description's phrasing actively misleads about result completeness unless the agent reads the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Brevity is not the problem here; the sentence is simply under-loaded, which is penalized in the other dimensions rather than this one.

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 tool is simple, has a full output schema and complete annotations, so minimal description is defensible. The remaining gap is the pagination story: nothing tells the agent that results are capped at 50 and default to 10, which matters for deciding whether this tool can answer a 'all issues in project' question at all.

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% — every parameter carries a description, pattern, default and bounds — so the schema does the work and a baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about project_key format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Get') and resource ('issues for a specific Jira project'), so an agent knows the operation and the scoping key. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like jira_search, jira_get_board_issues, or jira_get_sprint_issues, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_search (the general query tool) or the board/sprint issue listings, all of which return issues from a narrower or broader scope. The agent must infer the tradeoff from names alone.

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