Jira connection status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response reveals (connection state, account, sites) and by telling the agent to call it first when another tool reports NOT_CONNECTED. It does not discuss auth prerequisites or rate limits, but those are not essential for a zero-parameter status check.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a directly actionable routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by naming the connection state, Atlassian account, accessible sites, and selected site. That is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's result shape, though it does not specify exact field names or response formatting.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the status information returned rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: it shows Jira connection status and enumerates the exact status fields returned (connected state, Atlassian account, accessible sites, selected site). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_connect, jira_list_sites, and jira_select_site, which perform actions rather than report status.

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 description gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Call this first if any other tool reports NOT_CONNECTED.' That is clear usage guidance for the primary diagnostic scenario. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as jira_connect or jira_list_sites, but the error-routing instruction provides actionable context without ambiguity.

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