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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives the API endpoint and an odd instruction about markdown. Missing details on whether the tool mutates data, required permissions, side effects, or response behavior.

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 sentences, brief. The second sentence, 'Do not use markdown in your query,' seems out of place and may confuse the agent. Otherwise concise but could be clearer and more informative.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description lacks key contextual information for a write operation. It does not specify return values, success/failure indicators, prerequisites, or potential errors. Inadequate for fully understanding tool behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's meaning is clear from schema. The description adds 'by its name' which is slightly ambiguous given the pageId parameter. No significant additional semantic value beyond schema.

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 adds an attachment from Confluence to a Jira ticket, referencing the API endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_attachment_from_public_url'. However, mentioning 'by its name' slightly confuses because the parameter is a pageId, not a name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'add_attachment_from_public_url' exists but is not compared. The description implies Confluence source but does not state when not to use or provide exclusion criteria.

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, the description carries the burden. It adds a behavioral instruction ('Do not use markdown in your query') and references the API endpoint, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or constraints (e.g., URL must be publicly accessible).

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 sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds a key caveat. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but missing details like return value, failure modes, and the requirement that the URL be publicly accessible. Could be more 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, thus baseline 3 is appropriate. The 'Do not use markdown' note is a general instruction, not parameter-specific.

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 ('Add'), resource ('attachment'), source ('from a public url'), and target ('to a ticket on Jira'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'add_attachment_from_confluence' which uses a different source. The mention of the API endpoint reinforces the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_attachment_from_confluence' or 'edit_ticket'. The description lacks explicit context for selection, leaving the agent to infer.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Do not use markdown' but fails to disclose that this is a write/modify operation or any side effects (e.g., notifications, permissions required).

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 sentences: first clearly states purpose, second gives a formatting caution. Concise, though the markdown note seems slightly out of 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?

No output schema, no annotations. For a mutation tool, missing explanation of return values, error cases, or permissions. The description is minimal and leaves important 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the API endpoint context but not additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('assign a ticket') and the specific Jira API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or edit 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites (e.g., permissions). The description only provides the API endpoint without usage context.

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 provided, so description must cover behavior fully. It only mentions the API endpoint and a formatting restriction. It doesn't disclose required permissions, error conditions, side effects, or what happens with optional fields. This is insufficient for a creation 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?

Description is very concise (one sentence plus warning), but lacks structure. Could be more informative without adding length. Being underinformative is not ideal conciseness.

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 has 5 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description fails to explain how parameters relate (e.g., parent is optional for sub-tasks), valid values for issuetype, or response behavior. Many gaps remain.

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 covers 60% of parameter descriptions (e.g., project key, issue type name). The description adds only a markdown restriction, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work; description adds no extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a Jira ticket, specifying the API endpoint. This differentiates from sibling tools like edit_ticket and delete_ticket by the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other creation tools like add_attachment_from_confluence.

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?

Only usage guidance is 'Do not use markdown in any field.' No information on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites, or context. The description lacks any decision-making 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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete a ticket', which implies destructiveness, but does not mention irreversibility, cascade effects, or required permissions. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the impact.

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 short (two sentences), but the second sentence 'Do not use markdown in your query' is tangential and likely irrelevant to the tool's function, wasting space. It could be removed to improve conciseness.

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 is destructive and has no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about deletion behavior, such as its permanence or effects on related data. The current description is inadequate for safe and informed tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the sole parameter 'issueIdOrKey' as 'The issue id or key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'a ticket on Jira', and includes the API endpoint, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like edit_ticket or create_ticket. However, the extraneous instruction 'Do not use markdown in your query' may confuse the tool's purpose.

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 such as edit_ticket or assign_ticket. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or situations where deletion is not appropriate.

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, and the description only notes 'Do not use markdown in any field.' It fails to disclose other behavioral traits like authorization needs, idempotency, or side effects of editing fields.

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 very concise (one short sentence plus a note) and front-loaded with purpose. It could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, or field behavior. The current description is minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the markdown note is a constraint but not parameter semantics.

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 it edits a Jira ticket and specifies the API endpoint. However, it does not list the editable fields nor distinguish from siblings like assign_ticket, which also modifies 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_ticket or create_ticket. The sibling tools list implies specialized tools exist, but no exclusions or context are given.

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 mentions the API endpoint ('/rest/api/3/search/jql') and a constraint about markdown, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only or mutation operation (though 'Execute' suggests read-only), what authentication or permissions are required, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary technical guidance without fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating behavioral details from usage instructions.

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 executing JQL queries (which can involve syntax, permissions, and result handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication needs, error cases, response format, and how results are returned (e.g., pagination, fields included). This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('jql' and 'number_of_results'), including a default value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain JQL syntax, result formatting, or constraints on 'number_of_results'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 ('Execute a JQL query') and the target resource ('on Jira'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'query_assignable' or 'get_only_ticket_name_and_description', which might also involve querying Jira data. The description is clear about what it does but 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 minimal guidance with 'Do not use markdown in your query', which is a technical constraint but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'query_assignable' or 'get_only_ticket_name_and_description', nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with little guidance on 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It claims to 'get all' statuses, but the input schema parameter 'number_of_results' defaults to 1, implying a limited return — a clear contradiction with the description. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 short but includes an unnecessary instruction about markdown, which wastes space. The first sentence is acceptable.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what statuses include (e.g., IDs, names) and reconcile the 'all' vs. limited results conflict. It currently leaves the agent with unanswered questions.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description does not mention the 'number_of_results' parameter at all. The schema description 'Number of results to return' conflicts with the description's 'Get all', so no added meaning is provided.

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 retrieves all Jira statuses and mentions the API endpoint, but the phrase 'Do not use markdown in your query' is irrelevant and detracts slightly from clarity.

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 siblings like list_projects or execute_jql, nor are there any context or exclusion criteria.

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 mentions the API endpoint and a markdown restriction, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. The markdown note is vague and doesn't clarify if it's a requirement or a warning.

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 brief but not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second sentence about markdown is confusing and doesn't add clear value. It could be more front-loaded with essential information, though it avoids excessive verbosity.

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. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., format of name and description, error responses) or behavioral constraints. For a query tool with two parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents both parameters (jql query string and number_of_results with default). The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain JQL syntax, valid result ranges, or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the tool retrieves ticket name and description using a specific API endpoint, which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_jql' (which likely performs similar JQL queries) or specify what makes this tool unique (e.g., limited fields returned vs. full ticket data). The mention of 'Do not use markdown in your query' is confusing and doesn't clarify the core purpose.

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 sibling tools like 'execute_jql' or explain why one would choose this tool over others for querying tickets. The only usage hint is the confusing markdown restriction, which doesn't help with 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, the description carries full burden but only states the API endpoint. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The instruction about markdown is not about tool behavior.

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 short but includes an irrelevant instruction about markdown. While concise, the extraneous sentence reduces clarity. A more focused description would be better.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description provides the basic purpose but omits guidance on usage context or return value format. It is minimally 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?

The single parameter 'number_of_results' is fully described in the schema with 'Number of results to return'. The description adds no further meaning, so baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema 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?

Clearly states the tool lists all projects on Jira, specifying the API endpoint. The verb 'list' and resource 'projects' are explicit. However, the mention of 'Do not use markdown' is unrelated but does not obscure the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. It simply describes the action without providing context for selection among sibling tools like execute_jql or get_all_statuses.

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 provided, and description only mentions API endpoint. Missing details on permissions, return behavior, or error conditions. The markdown note adds little 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?

One sentence, efficient. The markdown instruction is slightly extraneous but does not harm 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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter. However, lacks explanation of return format or what 'assignable' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described. Description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states querying assignables to a ticket via a specific Jira API endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'assign_ticket' or 'execute_jql'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only instruction is 'Do not use markdown', which is unrelated to usage context.

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