Get Issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a non-obvious limitation: linked Confluence pages are never included, and in Jira Data Center they appear as remote links. It also notes the dependency on CONFLUENCE_BASE_URL for certain tools. However, it does not specify response format or error behavior, which are minor gaps for a single-issue fetch.

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 longer than average, but every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, listing return fields, and giving a detailed cross-tool workflow for Confluence. It is well-structured with a clear 'Confluence access' section. Slightly verbose but justified.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the tool's scope, its relationship to other tools, and provides an end-to-end alternative workflow. It fully covers the context an agent needs to use it correctly.

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 schema already fully covers the single parameter (issueKey) with an example. The description adds usage context by referring to the issueKey in the workflow, but no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the verb ('fetches'), the resource ('full details for a single issue'), and the API endpoint. It lists specific fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue_comments or search_issues.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool (Confluence content), and exactly when to use alternative tools (get_issue_remote_links, confluence_get_page, and confluence_search). The 'Confluence access' section offers a step-by-step workflow, covering both reading remote links and alternative search.

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