Jira GET Request

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 and does so comprehensively. It explains critical behavioral traits: token cost implications of unfiltered responses, the default TOON output format, the need for schema exploration, rate limiting guidance through maxResults, and API endpoint deprecation warnings. This goes far beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Cost Optimization, Schema Discovery Pattern, Common paths, etc.), but it's quite lengthy. While most content is valuable, some redundancy exists (jq importance mentioned multiple times). It's front-loaded with critical information but could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 (generic API wrapper with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides exceptional contextual completeness. It covers authentication context (implied through Jira API), rate limiting strategies, error handling patterns (schema discovery), output format details, deprecated endpoints, and extensive examples. For a tool without structured behavioral annotations, this description compensates fully.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It provides practical examples for all parameters (path examples, queryParams usage, jq filtering patterns, outputFormat implications), cost optimization context for jq, and real-world usage patterns. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases beyond what's implied in examples.

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 as 'Read any Jira data' with specific details about the default TOON format. It distinguishes from siblings (jira_delete, jira_patch, jira_post, jira_put) by emphasizing this is a GET/read operation, not a mutation. The verb 'Read' is specific and unambiguous.

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 extensive, explicit guidance on when and how to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes cost optimization strategies (always use jq, use maxResults), a schema discovery pattern, and common paths for different use cases. It explicitly warns against using the deprecated '/rest/api/3/search' endpoint and provides JQL examples for issue searching.

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