get_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read operation ('Retrieve') and explicitly enumerates the return fields, giving an agent a concrete expectation of the output. It does not mention not-found behavior or performance, but the core behavior for the main use case is well covered.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second enumerates the return fields. Every sentence adds value, there is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input semantics and the full set of return fields. The only gap is edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the ticket key does not exist), but the core use case is adequately covered.

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 only provides the parameter name 'ticket_id' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that this is a 'Jira key', which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. It stops short of providing a format example (e.g., 'PROJ-123'), but the essential meaning is conveyed.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full analysis record for a ticket by its Jira key'), and explicitly lists the fields returned. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_analyses or get_kb_stats, relying on the tool name and context instead.

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 when to use this tool (when you need the full analysis record for a specific ticket) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Given siblings like list_analyses and store_analysis, a sentence directing the agent to those tools for other scenarios would have been helpful.

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