Get Service Desk Queues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious deployment context — this endpoint does not exist on Jira Cloud — which is exactly the kind of behavioral fact annotations cannot express. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or permission requirements.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the platform caveat immediately after. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves room for a routing sentence that would cost little.

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?

Output schema and full schema descriptions mean return values and parameters need not be explained. What is missing is the connective tissue: where service_desk_id comes from and how this differs from jira_get_queue_issues. For a low-complexity read tool with rich structured data, this is adequate but not complete.

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 limit, start_at and service_desk_id all documented including ranges, defaults and an example value. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 queues for a Jira Service Desk"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from jira_get_queue_issues (issues within a queue) and jira_get_service_desk_for_project. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

"Server/Data Center only. Not available on Jira Cloud." is a genuine usage constraint that prevents failed calls on Cloud instances. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_queue_issues, or on how to obtain the required service_desk_id (e.g., via jira_get_service_desk_for_project).

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