Jira GET Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token-efficient TOON output format, the cost implications of unfiltered responses, and the schema discovery pattern. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations could offer.

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 long but well-structured with sections, bullet points, and examples. Every section serves a purpose: cost optimization, schema discovery, common paths, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and cost warning. No extraneous filler, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by covering common paths, JQL examples, output format, and cost-saving techniques. It also links to the full API reference. It does not describe error responses or return structures, but for a read tool with this level of guidance, it is remarkably complete.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for path, queryParams, and jq expressions, and by explaining the outputFormat enum. This goes beyond the schema to clarify usage and cost optimization.

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 opens with "Read any Jira data," which clearly identifies the tool as a read-only GET operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_post, jira_put, jira_patch, and jira_delete, which are all mutations. The scope is broad but well-defined as covering all Jira data.

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 strong guidance on how to use the tool efficiently (use jq, maxResults, schema discovery pattern) and even warns against deprecated paths. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the write siblings), though this is implied by the verb 'Read' and the sibling names.

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