jira_get_issue_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only intent via the verb 'get' and specifies the scope of returned data, but it omits details about error handling, response structure, or pagination behavior.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of the returned data and the operation's scope. However, it omits details about the response format or how pagination works via maxResults, which would be helpful for an agent to correctly process the results.

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 fully documents both parameters (issueKey and maxResults) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving the changelog/history of a JIRA issue, explicitly listing the types of content returned (field changes, status transitions, modifications). This distinct resource and scope differentiates it from siblings like jira_get_issue, which retrieves current state.

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 when historical changes are needed, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use the tool. There is no mention of jira_get_issue or search tools, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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