get_issue_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals that results are resolved to key+type+status+summary, link direction is human-readable ('blocks' vs 'is blocked by'), and epics include their contained issues. This gives a solid understanding of what the tool does without mentioning side effects (likely a read-only operation) or authorization requirements, which are minor 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 two concise paragraphs with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then details the output structure and value proposition ('so the next issue to read can be chosen'). Every sentence contributes meaningful information, making it appropriately sized.

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 the presence of an output schema (which presumably details the return type), the description gives an adequate high-level overview of what the tool returns. It covers the main categories (parent, subtasks, links, epic contents) and the format of resolved summaries. It doesn't mention potential errors or pagination, but for a graph-mapping tool this is not critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide to call the 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?

The only parameter 'issue_key' is already fully described in the schema (e.g., 'Jira issue key like "PROJ-123"'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('the reference graph around a Jira issue') and enumerates exactly what is returned (parent, subtasks, linked issues, and epic contents). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_issue (single issue), get_comments, search_issues, and get_attachment by focusing on relationships rather than raw issue data. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to decide which issue to read next based on the relationship graph ('so the next issue to read can be chosen without further calls'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives for cases like retrieving a single issue, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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