Jira Get Issue

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

The markdown note ('Description and comments are returned as markdown') adds a real behavioral detail. With no annotations, the description is responsible for conveying safety/read-only nature and side effects. 'Get' implies a read but this is not explicit, and no behavior like field defaults or comment inclusion is mentioned. A 3 is fair: some useful detail, but limited.

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 with the primary action first and a useful formatting detail second. No filler. Slight ambiguity in 'comments' (only returned when include_comments=true), but structurally it's tight and 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?

The output schema covers return valueshebthetish and the parameter schema covers arguments. The description does not explain when to choose this over jira_search_issues, nor does it mention that comments are optional and off by default. Still, with schema support, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly for a known issue key.

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?

Parameter schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does clarify the content/format of the issue description and comments. No enrichment of parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear object ('an issue'), which distinguishes it from sibling search/create/update tools. It doesn't explicitly say 'by key' but the required 'key' parameter in the schema makes the intent clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from jira_search_issues, so not a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus jira_search_issues, jira_update_issue, or other siblings. An agent must infer from the schema that a key is required. There is no stated precondition or selection criterion.

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