jira_get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that the tool returns authors, timestamps, and content, and hints at potentially large responses via pagination advice. However, it does not disclose sorting order, error behavior, or permission requirements, which would be helpful for a full understanding.

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 three concise sentences, each with a clear purpose: stating the primary function, describing the returned data, and offering usage guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return content, and pagination support. It lacks specifics about pagination response structure (e.g., total count) but overall provides enough context for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds a general note that pagination parameters control response size, reinforcing what the schema already states. It does not provide additional meaning or context beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 begins with 'Get comments from a Jira issue', clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_add_comment (write) and jira_get_issue (issue details) by focusing on reading comment history. Also mentions pagination support and return contents.

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 purpose makes clear when to use this tool: when needing comment history for an issue. It also advises using pagination parameters to control response size and avoid token limits, which is practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like jira_add_comment.

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