jira_get_project_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 return is a JSON string with pagination info, which is useful. However, it does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or the precise scope of 'all issues' (e.g., whether archived issues are included). The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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 starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, but then repeats schema information in an Args block and even includes a 'ctx' parameter that is not present in the input schema, which could confuse an agent. The Returns line is redundant given the output schema exists. It is not as concise as it could be.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters, and the output schema handles return structure. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to jira_search or jira_get_board_issues, nor whether the results are limited to certain issue types. This leaves some contextual gaps.

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 project_key, limit, and start_at with their constraints. The description restates these parameter names and basic purpose without adding new meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 gets all issues for a specific Jira project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like jira_search or jira_get_board_issues, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies project-scoped retrieval but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer another tool such as jira_search.

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