jira_get_board_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with pagination info, which is useful. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid JQL, but for a read-only retrieval tool, the pagination and return format disclosure is adequate. The description does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured and each line earns its place. It is slightly verbose with the full parameter list repeated from the schema, but this is a minor redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the return format (JSON string with pagination info) and the filtering mechanism (JQL). It could mention that board_id must be a board ID from jira_get_agile_boards, but this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly, including JQL examples and field lists. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Get all issues linked to a specific board filtered by JQL.' This clearly distinguishes it from jira_get_sprint_issues and jira_get_project_issues, which target different scopes. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the core purpose is 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 usage context: it is for retrieving board issues with JQL filtering, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus jira_search, jira_get_project_issues, or jira_get_sprint_issues. The JQL examples in the schema provide some guidance on what queries are possible, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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