get_executions_by_defect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it lists executions with step-level defects and the return format. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond what is inferred. Adequate but minimal extra info beyond the schema.

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 short sentences plus a note; every sentence provides value. No fluff. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, defect parameter, and return shape. However, it could be more complete on pagination details (e.g., max_records limits) and error cases. Still mostly adequate for a simple list 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 0%, so description compensates partially. It explains the defect parameter as a Jira bug key or id, and mentions return shape. But it does not describe max_records or offset beyond schema defaults. Adds meaning for one parameter, not all.

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 it lists executions linked to a given defect, including step-level defects. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'executions', and distinguishes from siblings like get_executions_by_test or list_executions by focusing on defect linkage.

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 implies usage when a defect is known (defect is a Jira bug key or id), but does not explicitly exclude or compare to related tools like link_execution_defects or list_execution_defects. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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