a2atlassian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by specifying the return content ('full issue data including fields and status'), which complements the existing output schema. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling (invalid key scenarios), authentication requirements, or rate limiting.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no fluff. The first states the operation and target, the second describes the return value. However, given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need for detailed return value explanation), the description is incomplete due to 0% schema coverage and lack of annotations. With three parameters requiring documentation, the description only implicitly covers one ('issue_key'), leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to construct valid arguments.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While 'by key' implies the 'issue_key' parameter, the description fails to explain the 'project' parameter (whether it expects a key or ID) or the 'format' parameter (what valid values exist beyond the default 'json'). This leaves two of three parameters undocumented.

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 core action ('Get') and resource ('Jira issue') with the specific identifier ('by key'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'jira_search' (which would retrieve multiple issues) and write operations like 'jira_add_comment'. However, it could explicitly differentiate from related read operations like 'jira_get_transitions'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that 'jira_search' should be used for listing or querying multiple issues, or that 'jira_get_transitions' is needed for workflow status options. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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