jira_get_issue

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-only retrieval and outlines the response scope, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential error cases, or how much data may be returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its key return categories without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states the operation and the included detail types. It misses only a brief note on when to use it instead of searching or filtering tools, and with no output schema it could describe the return shape more explicitly.

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%, with issueKey documented and exemplified as 'PROJ-123'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but none is needed because the schema fully covers it.

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 and resource: 'Get Jira issue details' and further specifies included content (parent, subtasks, issue links, remote links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search_issues (searching/finding) and jira_get_comments (comments only).

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_search_issues. The intended context is only implied by the word 'Get' and the issueKey parameter, not stated.

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