get_issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via the word 'Get'. It says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, behavior when the issue is missing, or rate limits. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the operational profile is undisclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, with parameter notes kept tight and example-driven. There is no redundancy or filler, though the args block is mildly list-like rather than integrated prose.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the essentials are present: purpose plus all parameter semantics. The gaps are behavioral (permissions, error/empty cases) and routing versus search_issues, which keeps it at minimum-viable completeness.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters, and it does: issue_key with a concrete example format, fields as a comma-separated list defaulting to all, and expand with sample values. It stops short of enumerating valid field/expansion values, but the added meaning is substantial.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a Jira issue'), which clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like search_issues. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or contrast its scope with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one issue by key is obviously a single-record lookup versus search_issues, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or what happens with an invalid key. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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