getJiraProjectVersions

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. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the vague list/single duality – no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no return shape. For a paginated list endpoint this is a notable gap even with the lower annotated bar.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no bloat, so it is not verbose. However it is under-specified rather than concise – there is no front-loaded verb or resource statement, and the fragment omits essential framing.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should explain both the list and single-version modes, pagination, and the relationship between projectIdOrKey and versionId. It does none of these, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from parameter names.

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 50%: versionId and projectIdOrKey carry inline descriptions while startAt and maxResults are undocumented. The description's 'or a single version' loosely maps to versionId, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's own text and leaves the pagination parameters unexplained. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a noun fragment ('A space's releases/versions, or a single version.') with no verb, so the agent must infer that it lists versions. It gestures at the list-vs-single duality, but 'space' is Confluence terminology rather than Jira's 'project', which adds confusion. The name getJiraProjectVersions clarifies more than the description does.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus manageJiraProjectVersion or getJiraProjectVersionRelatedWork, both of which appear in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated. The 'or a single version' clause hints at two modes but doesn't say how to choose between them.

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