jira_get_comments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'get list of comments' without mentioning read-only guarantees, required permissions, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but no behavioral traits beyond that are revealed.

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, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word earns its place and nothing extraneous is included.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be lengthy. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify what fields the returned comments contain, ordering, or pagination. It is adequate for basic orientation but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100%, as issueKey is documented with a clear example ('PROJ-123'). The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Получить список комментариев' – get list of comments) and a clear resource (comments on a Jira issue), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue and jira_add_comment. However, it lacks additional scoping details such as whether all comments are returned or if any filtering applies, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_issue or jira_search_issues. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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