jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description discloses return format (JSON string), raises ValueError, and reveals a side effect via update_history parameter. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read operation this is substantial.

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 opening sentence is clear and front-loaded. However, the Args section repeats the input schema parameter descriptions with less detail, adding redundancy. Returns/Raises are useful. It is not excessively long but could be trimmed.

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 is well-specified by the schema and output schema. The description adds the defining feature (Epic links), notes the update_history side effect, and provides error info. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's parameter explanations largely repeat or simplify the schema entries (e.g., fields, expand, comment_limit) without adding meaningful new information.

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 'Get' and resource 'specific Jira issue' and adds unique detail 'Epic links and relationship information' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search or jira_get_project_issues.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool name and summary, but it doesn't tell agents to prefer this over jira_search for single issue retrieval or when NOT to use it.

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