jira_server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Inspect', but does not explicitly state it is safe, non-destructive, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a simple info tool, the basic transparency is adequate but minimal.

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 top-level description is extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words) with no filler. The additional parameter details are placed logically in the schema description. Every part serves a purpose.

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 server info tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and parameter behavior. It could mention that the tool is safe to call repeatedly, but this is not a major gap.

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 description coverage is 50% (only 'full' has an individual description), but the description text inside the input schema adds meaning to both parameters: it explains the 'action' enum and the effect of 'full: true'. This compensates well for the missing per-parameter description on 'action'.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource as 'Jira server' with details on version, build, deployment type. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_issue, jira_project, etc.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other jira_* tools. There are no hints about prerequisites or alternatives.

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