jira_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains the summary projection and full parameter behavior but omits side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Well-structured with a summary followed by action list. However, the summary sentence is duplicated in both the description and schema description. Otherwise concise and front-loaded.

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?

Covers all 9 actions and parameter requirements. Lacks details on output format beyond summary references. With 15 parameters and no output schema, completeness is moderate but adequate for an agent.

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 low (20%), but description ties parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'get: requires issueIdOrKey; optional fields, expand'). Some parameter info is repeated from schema. Compensates partially but not fully for low 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: managing Jira issues with 9 distinct actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_comment, jira_attachment, etc., which handle sub-resources.

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?

Description lists actions and their required parameters but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives like jira_search. Usage context is implied by the actions, not stated.

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