Zephyr: Get test executions linked to a Jira issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that the output includes keys and versions, which is helpful. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 moderately sized with a heading, parameter list, and example. The example is valuable. Could be slightly more concise, but no extraneous content.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the input and output expectation (list with keys and versions). It covers the core functionality without 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and pattern. The description repeats the parameter info and provides an example, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves test executions linked to a specific Jira issue. The example with PROJ-123 and expected output reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like get_test_executions (general) and get_test_cycles_linked_to_a_jira_issue.

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 via 'Toolset: Issue Links' and the single required parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., general get_test_executions). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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