read_jira_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval action and hints at the response content (fields, status, transitions), but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or the impact of the expand parameter defaults.

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 concise sentences, with the core action and main content front-loaded. The second sentence adds a crisp usage directive without fluff or repetition.

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 two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to select and call it appropriately. It could additionally mention the changelog portion of the default expand, but the current description is functional and complete enough for this low-complexity case.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including a clear example for issueKey and a detailed expand description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a specific Jira issue'), and details the kinds of information returned (fields, status, transitions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search and creation tools by focusing on a single issue's full detail.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'to get the full picture of a single issue,' which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like search_jira_issues or note when not to use it.

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