xray_get_test_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns the full Jira issue details') and the fields-limiting feature, but does not mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or side effects. This is basic transparency but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful parametric note. No repetitive or extraneous content; every phrase 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?

For a simple tool with two straightforward parameters and no nested objects, the description is adequate. It tells the user exactly how to invoke it and what to expect. It does not elaborate on error cases or permissions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 for both parameters, including examples. The description reinforces the 'fields' parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Fetches a single Test Plan issue from Jira'), the resource ('Test Plan issue'), and the method ('by its issue key'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xray_search_test_plans and xray_get_test_execution, which target different resources or use search semantics.

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 clear context: use this when you have a known issue key and need a single Test Plan issue. It also explains the optional 'fields' parameter for limiting output. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., search) or state exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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