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 explicitly reveals a notable side effect: automatic download of log-like attachments into a shared data directory, and offers a skip flag. It does not mention error behavior or permission requirements, but the main side effect is transparently disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then side-effect and option. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers the fetched content and the key side-effect. It is slightly incomplete in parameter details and alternative guidance, but sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 the description must compensate. It explains download_logs=false to skip, but does not clarify the default/null behavior of download_logs or the expected format of ticket_id (e.g., Jira key vs numeric ID). Only partial compensation is provided for one of two parameters.

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 tool 'Fetch a Jira ticket' and enumerates the returned content (summary, description, comments, attachments, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tickets (searching) and get_attachment (retrieving a specific attachment).

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to fetch a full Jira ticket with details. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over siblings or when to use alternatives like search_tickets or get_attachment. The download_logs guidance is operational rather than selection-oriented.

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