jira_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior (a read-only connection test), what it returns (authenticated account info, server version), and the purpose. It doesn't mention edge cases like network errors or permission requirements, but for a simple health check this 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns, covering the essentials despite having no output schema. It omits details like whether it makes a network call or how long it takes, but that's less critical for a health-check 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%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the parameters (max_tokens, break_token_rule) are generic MCP parameters not specific to this tool.

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's function with a specific verb ('Test the Jira connection') and resource (Jira), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on health check/authentication rather than issue operations. It also specifies the exact output (account info, server version/deployment type).

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 explicit guidance to 'Run first to verify credentials and connectivity,' which tells the agent when to use this tool before other Jira operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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