jira_get_settings

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

With no annotations, the description adds a valuable behavioral detail by stating the API token is redacted, informing the agent that the output is sanitized. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state there are no 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Return') and includes a key detail (token redaction) without unnecessary words or repetition.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what is returned and the redaction behavior. It does not specify the exact return format, but 'environment variables' implies a key-value structure, which is sufficient for this getter.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'Return the current Jira MCP configuration (environment variables), with the API token redacted.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions the redaction behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle issues and comments.

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 through its purpose: it returns configuration, so it is used when configuration needs to be inspected. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but no alternative config tools exist among siblings, making the context clear.

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