jira_get_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it retrieves details, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, or side effects. The behavior is simple and inferable, so a 3 is appropriate—clear but not rich in context.

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 a single, concise sentence that contains all essential information: the action, the target, and the parameter format. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what input is needed. The lack of output structure is not a gap because the tool's purpose is clear—returning ticket details.

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?

The schema description already covers the parameter fully (Key of the Jira ticket with example IIAB-81069). The tool description repeats the same example, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is warranted.

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 action ('Recupera i dettagli' - retrieves the details), the resource (a specific Jira ticket), and the unique identifier (its key). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'specifico tramite la sua chiave', which clearly separates it from searching or getting my tickets.

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 the use case: when you have a specific ticket key and need its details. It doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools (jira_search_tickets, jira_get_my_tickets), but the context is clear enough that this is the tool for a known key. Missing explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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