jira_get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read operation but does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements, leaving key behavioral expectations unstated.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource clearly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essential information needed to invoke it. It could be slightly stronger if it mentioned that the result is a list of comment objects, but the core usage is sufficiently clear.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation, with 'issueKey' described as 'The Jira issue key'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond this baseline, so the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('all comments from a Jira issue'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like jira_get_issue, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to identify the intended operation.

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 such as jira_add_comment or jira_get_issue. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must rely on the tool name alone to decide.

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