listJiraIssueRemoteIssueLinks

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 profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, return format, or rate limits.

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 waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool with an undocumented parameter. Front-loaded, yes, but insufficiently informative.

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 a simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is too minimal to help an agent select it among dozens of sibling tools. It does not explain what remote links are or when to use this versus getJiraIssue or listJiraIssueLinkTypes.

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 single required parameter issueIdOrKey has 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'Jira work item' which loosely hints at the parameter, but does not explain its format or meaning beyond that.

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 identifies the resource ('remote links associated with a Jira work item') which distinguishes it from siblings like listJiraIssueLinkTypes and createJiraIssueLink. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name, but a human or agent can infer the list operation.

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 alternatives mentioned, and no prerequisites. The description is a bare fragment with no routing information.

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