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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a comment' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this tool remains incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no format examples beyond 'PROJECT-123', no character limits, no mention of optional fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_jira_issue' or 'transition_jira_issue' beyond the obvious comment-focused functionality.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing issue), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'create_jira_issue' for initial issue creation or 'transition_jira_issue' for status changes.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an issue but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications sent), or what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate issues). The mention of 'capitalization handled automatically' for issue types adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new Jira issue') and adds only essential supplemental information about issue types. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or response format, nor does it address usage relative to siblings. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall completeness is poor given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing common issue types and noting capitalization handling, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or provide examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'new Jira issue', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_jira_comment' or 'get_jira_issue' by specifying creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_jira_issues' (plural), which might handle bulk creation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_jira_issues' (for bulk operations) or 'create_jira_project' (for different resources). It mentions common issue types but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual triggers for selection among sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the bulk nature and case-sensitivity requirement, but fails to address critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on partial failures. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating the core purpose and another providing critical implementation detail. Both sentences earn their place, with the second addressing a common pitfall. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from more complete behavioral context.

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 bulk creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, whether there are size limits for bulk operations, or what permissions are required. The case-sensitivity warning is helpful but doesn't compensate for the broader contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds specific guidance about case-sensitivity for 'issue_type' values, which provides useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the structure of field dictionaries or provide examples, leaving the schema to carry most of the semantic weight.

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 ('bulk create') and resource ('new Jira issues'), distinguishing it from the singular 'create_jira_issue' sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_jira_project', leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this bulk creation tool versus the singular 'create_jira_issue' sibling, nor does it mention prerequisites, rate limits, or alternative approaches. The only contextual note is about case-sensitivity for issue types, which is parameter-specific rather than usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states 'Create a new Jira project' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with 12 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loading the essential purpose without any wasted words. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it achieves maximum efficiency in communication.

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 complex creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what permissions are required, how it differs from other project management operations, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 12 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Jira project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_jira_issue' by specifying 'project' rather than 'issue', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other project-related tools like 'get_jira_projects'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when to choose this over other project creation methods, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_jira_projects' for listing existing projects.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets details' without specifying what details are returned, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a read operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured issue data. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'issue_key' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'search_jira_issues' or 'get_jira_project_issue_types', which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_jira_issues' for multiple issues or 'get_jira_project_issue_types' for metadata. It lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool in a suite with many siblings.

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 the parameter 'project_key' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying it's for a 'specific Jira project', which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all available issue types for a specific Jira project', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_jira_issue' or 'get_jira_projects', which focus on different resources, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 usage when needing issue types for a project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_jira_issue' for individual issues) or any prerequisites. Without such context, the agent may struggle to choose correctly among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'accessible' means in terms of permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all accessible Jira projects') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It lacks context on what 'accessible' entails, the return format (e.g., list of projects with fields), or any behavioral notes. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to ensure the agent can use it effectively, but it falls short.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but with zero params, the baseline is high. It implicitly confirms no filtering parameters are needed, aligning with the schema. A perfect score is withheld as it could briefly note the lack of parameters for clarity.

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 'Get all accessible Jira projects' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Jira projects'), and specifies scope ('all accessible'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_jira_issue' (single issue) and 'get_jira_project_issue_types' (issue types for a project). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_jira_issues' which might also return projects indirectly, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this should be used for listing projects versus using 'search_jira_issues' with project filters, or if it's for initial discovery before other operations. The description implies usage for retrieving projects but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'available workflow transitions,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (retrieving workflow transitions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output includes (e.g., transition IDs, names, conditions) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context to aid the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'issue_key' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of transitions or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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's purpose: 'Get available workflow transitions for a Jira issue.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow transitions for a Jira issue'), making the action and target explicit. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'transition_jira_issue,' which might handle applying transitions, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'transition_jira_issue' for applying transitions or 'get_jira_issue' for general issue data. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of Jira search (involving JQL queries and result limits), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use beyond basic invocation.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('jql' and 'max_results'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as JQL syntax examples or default behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for Jira issues') and the mechanism ('using JQL'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_jira_issue' (which fetches a single issue) by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'create_jira_issues'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_jira_issue' for single issues or 'get_jira_projects' for project lists, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing JQL knowledge. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the transition is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., updating fields), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects, permissions), usage guidance relative to siblings, and details on return values or errors, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'fields' object structure or 'transition_id' sourcing). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('transition') and resource ('Jira issue') with the target outcome ('to a new status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_jira_transitions' or 'search_jira_issues' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to get transition IDs first), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'add_jira_comment' or 'create_jira_issue', leaving usage context unclear.

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