Get child issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the key trait that only direct children are returned (not the full descendant tree), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about ordering, pagination/caps on large epics, or the exact return shape.

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 well-formed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the resource and reserving the parenthetical for the disambiguation that matters. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for describing results, and it does name the two returned attributes (status, assignee) and the scope restriction (direct children only). For a small read-only tool with 100% schema coverage that is largely sufficient, though pagination behavior and the full result shape remain unstated.

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%, and each parameter (site, issueKey, includeDone) is documented in the schema including the default for includeDone. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Lists) and resource (direct children of an Epic, or sub-tasks of a standard issue), plus a glimpse of what's returned (status and assignee). It disambiguates the overloaded word 'children' by naming both hierarchy levels. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not (e.g., jira_get_issue for the parent, jira_search_issues for cross-project queries), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the two scenarios it enumerates (Epic children vs sub-tasks of a standard issue), which tells the agent when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as jira_search_issues for broader hierarchy queries or jira_get_issue for the parent itself.

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