jira_board

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

The description notes that mutation actions reject 'full: true' and that read actions with 'full: true' bypass summary projection. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on error. The disclosed trait about 'full: true' adds value but is 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?

The description is a single sentence upfront followed by a structured list in the schema description. It is mostly front-loaded and efficient, though the schema description is somewhat verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, but minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'manage Agile boards').

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 14 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of actions and their parameter dependencies. It explains the 'full' flag behavior. It lacks error handling or response format details, but the action-based mapping is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is only 7%, but the description enumerates actions and maps required/optional arguments (e.g., 'list: ... (optional startAt, maxResults, type, name, projectKeyOrId)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the sparse schema, clarifying parameter roles per action. However, some parameters (e.g., location, jql) lack further 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?

Description clearly states 'Manage Agile boards' with a list of actions (list/get/create/delete, configuration, issues, backlog, epics), which specifies the resource and operations. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., jira_issue, jira_sprint) which target other entities, though it could be more explicit about its exclusive scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_sprint or jira_epic. It does not describe prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the action list.

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