jira_get_comments

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: ascending ordering, full comment bodies, PAT-scoped visibility (a permission boundary), and a non-obvious Jira pagination quirk with remediation ('refresh rather than assuming the discussion is complete'). That is substantive disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences, the core capability front-loaded, then paging loop, then permission scope, then the paging edge case. No filler; each sentence carries distinct operational value.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the key return semantics (hasMore, nextStartAt, full bodies), which is what an agent needs to loop correctly. The only gap is page-size control via maxResults, which is never addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies startAt semantics ('start at 0') and implies issueKey via 'Jira issue comments', but never mentions maxResults or page-size behavior, leaving one of three parameters semantically undocumented despite machine-readable constraints in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'read one page of Jira issue comments' with ordering ('ascending creation order') and payload ('full bodies'). An agent can distinguish this from jira_get_issue or jira_search_issues without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit paging procedure ('start at 0 and repeat with nextStartAt until null') and an edge-case instruction for the hasMore/nextStartAt-null condition. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like jira_get_issue, but the operational guidance is unusually concrete.

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