listJiraIssueLinkTypes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds little beyond confirming this is a read of link-type metadata; it doesn't mention scope (global vs project-specific) or freshness of the data.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but it's a fragment ('Available work item link types in Jira.') rather than a complete statement of what the tool does. There's no waste, but also very little substance.

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 zero-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state that it lists link type names/IDs usable when creating issue links. As written, it lacks the return-value hint that would connect it to createJiraIssueLink, leaving a gap an agent must fill by assumption.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add, and the description doesn't need to compensate for anything 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?

States the resource ('link types in Jira') but the verb is implied rather than explicit; 'Available' hints at listing but doesn't commit. It's vague about whether it returns all available types or a filtered subset, and doesn't distinguish from siblings like createJiraIssueLink or listJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can't infer from the description alone whether this should be called before createJiraIssueLink to discover valid link type names, which is the obvious use case given the sibling tools.

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