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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the expected output format ('List of test executions linked to Jira issue PROJ-123 with their keys and versions'), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, ordering, or what happens when no executions are linked. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence summary, a toolset label, a parameters section, and an example. The example is useful and front-loaded. It's slightly longer than necessary because it repeats the parameter description from the schema, but the structure is clean and scannable.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It provides an example, expected output, and the toolset context. The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be fully explained. The only minor gap is not mentioning edge cases (e.g., no linked executions), but this is not critical for a simple lookup tool.

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% – the schema already documents issueKey as 'The key of the Jira issue' with a pattern constraint. The description repeats this in the Parameters section and adds an example value (PROJ-123). This adds marginal value but doesn't go beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'test executions linked to a Jira issue in Zephyr'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zephyr_get_test_executions (which likely lists all executions) and zephyr_get_test_cycles_linked_to_a_jira_issue (which gets cycles, not executions). The toolset label 'Issue Links' further clarifies its category.

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 a clear example of when to use the tool ('Check which test executions are linked to Jira issue PROJ-123') and the expected output. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over siblings. The example serves as a usage guideline.

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