jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the default response includes a minimal set of fields to avoid token limits, which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication, or response shape beyond field listings, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing essential usage tips. Every sentence contributes value: the first identifies the resource, the second and third explain parameter usage and default behavior. No fluff or repetition.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential aspects: how to identify the issue, what default fields are returned, how to customize fields, and which sibling tools to use for related operations. Error handling and auth are not explicitly covered, but these are commonly inferred and not critical for a basic retrieval tool.

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 100% since both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds a note about using 'fields' to control response size, but this duplicates information already present in the schema description. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed information about a Jira issue by its key or ID', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The tool's purpose is unambiguous and inherently distinct from sibling tools like jira_get_comments and jira_list_attachments, especially since the schema explicitly mentions these alternatives.

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 schema explicitly directs users to jira_get_comments for comments and jira_list_attachments for attachments, providing clear alternative tool guidance. Additionally, the description advises using the fields parameter to control response size and indicates when to add fields ('Only specify fields if you need additional information'), effectively stating when to use this tool's features versus defaults.

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