xray_get_test_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'full Jira issue details' and that the 'fields' parameter limits output, which is useful. However, it does not describe authentication needs, error behavior, or the exact response structure, leaving some 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes examples and parameter guidance without any unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core behavior, the required parameter, and the optional fields filter. It lacks explicit details on errors or permissions, but given the low complexity and the presence of sibling tools that cover other scenarios, it is adequately complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 a brief explanation of the 'fields' parameter ('limit which fields are returned') and provides example issue keys, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 function: 'Fetches a single Test Execution issue from Jira by its issue key'. It uses a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('Test Execution issue'), includes example keys, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or create by focusing on a single issue retrieval.

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 you have an issue key and want a single Test Execution, and it gives guidance on the 'fields' parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., xray_search_test_executions) or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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