Jira Server Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint, and that it returns data, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or that the endpoint is specifically for Jira Data Center (as opposed to Cloud). These are useful behavioral nuances but the description partially covers them by naming 'Jira Data Center'.

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 provides the purpose, key return fields, and the endpoint. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately scannable. The API path is included as a useful reference without burdening the text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists exactly what data will be returned (version, deployment type, build number), which allows an agent to decide if this tool is relevant. No additional behavioral details are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The description correctly does not invent parameters or add unnecessary detail.

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 states the tool returns Jira Data Center deployment info (version, deployment type, build number) and specifies the exact GET endpoint. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on issues, projects, or users.

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?

Although there are no explicit 'when to use' instructions, the description provides clear context that this is the tool for retrieving server deployment information. Among the sibling tools, none serve the same purpose, so implicit usage is strong. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but this is a minor gap for such a simple read-only tool.

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