Get Atlassian data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate read-only safety. It adds useful behavioral context that large output may be truncated, which is not present in annotations or schema. However, it does not mention authentication details or response format 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the key caveat about truncation. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity, the schema clarity, and the annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It notes potential truncation, which is critical for a generic GET endpoint. It does not explicitly describe return format, but the absence of an output schema and the generic nature of the tool make this acceptable. A 4 reflects the strong coverage of usage context.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters (path and query). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema (e.g., path must be site-relative, which is already in the schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents each parameter.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Make one authenticated GET request to a site-relative Jira or Confluence API path.' This distinguishes it from sibling jira_search, which focuses on search rather than direct path-based retrieval.

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 a clear context for use (direct API GET requests on Jira/Confluence) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling jira_search or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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