getJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or what 'evidence' actually contains – so it earns little beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, which is appropriately front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of under-specification given the schema and behavioral gaps.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what related work is, how versionId is obtained, and roughly what is returned. It does none of these, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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?

There is one required parameter (versionId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely hints at the target via 'space version (release)' and gives no format, source, or lookup guidance for versionId.

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 names the resource ('related work links on a space version/release') but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and 'space version' is imprecise terminology for what the sibling tools call a project version. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from manageJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork, leaving the read-vs-write split to be inferred from the 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the write-side counterpart manageJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork. The agent must infer that this is the read operation purely from the tool name.

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