jira_get_issue_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return fields and gives no information about pagination (maxResults), ordering, authentication needs, or side effects. For a read operation, the lack of these details leaves the agent under-informed.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and key return values with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain the return behavior more fully. It lists the returned fields but omits critical details about maxResults (defaults to 20, implying pagination) and does not clarify whether all comments are returned or just a subset. This leaves an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (issueKey and maxResults), which covers 100% of the parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'comments on a specific JIRA issue', which distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment, update_issue, and get_issue_history. It also lists the returned fields (author, body, creation date), adding clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as jira_get_issue_history or jira_search_issues. The usage is only implied by the verb and resource, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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