jira_get_board_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via 'start_at' and 'limit' and notes the return is a 'JSON string... including pagination info,' which adds some transparency. However, it does not discuss important traits like rate limits, authorization requirements, or the fact that 'all issues' is constrained by pagination defaults.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary and then organized into Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. The Args section duplicates much of the schema information, which adds some redundancy, but the overall structure is efficient and serves as a useful quick reference.

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?

The tool has a rich input schema, an output schema, and six parameters, and the description adequately covers the core use case, parameters, and return format. It explains pagination info and JQL filtering, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could be enhanced with sibling differentiation, but such guidance is not essential for basic invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists parameter names and short hints (e.g., 'Comma-separated fields to return') without adding significant meaning beyond the schema's detailed explanations and examples. It adds marginal value by grouping the parameters in a readable Args block.

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 the tool's primary function: 'Get all issues linked to a specific board filtered by JQL.' This specifies the verb, resource (board issues), and filtering mechanism, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like jira_search, jira_get_project_issues, and jira_get_sprint_issues by emphasizing the board scope.

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 phrase 'linked to a specific board' provides clear context that this tool is intended for board-scoped queries, which differentiates it from issue, project, or sprint searches. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, stopping short of the 'when/when-not/alternatives' standard.

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