jira_fetch_comments

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 adds value by specifying the return order (most recent first) and the empty list behavior, which are not evident from the schema. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or pagination limitations, which are typical for a fetch 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 fetch tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return behavior. It could detail the structure of comment objects, but the essential aspects (list of comments, ordering, empty list) are addressed, making it sufficiently complete for 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 fully describes the single parameter 'id' with a pattern and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the Jira issue context, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 it fetches all comments for a Jira issue, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_fetch_issue (which fetches the issue) and jira_add_comment (which adds comments) by focusing solely on comment 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 for retrieving comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools, such as mentioning that jira_fetch_issue is for the issue itself.

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