get_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API prefix and a common error, but lacks details about idempotency, rate limits, auth requirements beyond a token, or any side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first defines the purpose, the second adds practical troubleshooting. No wasted words.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a common error. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_ticket' or describe the response structure, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, and the schema already explains 'issueIdOrKey' clearly. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states the verb ('Get'), resource ('full issue JSON'), and source ('from Jira'). It differentiates from sibling 'get_only_ticket_name_and_description' by implying a complete response.

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 hints when to use (for full JSON) and provides a troubleshooting step for 401 errors, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like 'read_ticket' or 'get_task'.

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