jira_get_issue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: comments returned may be truncated with a nextStartAt continuation, only nonempty custom fields are included with original values, acceptance criteria appear where available, and attachment contents are never fetched. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect how an agent interprets the result.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope and the returned payload, then pagination caveat, then the compact-output toggle, then the explicit exclusion. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description takes on the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly (description, comments, links with relative relationships, attachment metadata, custom fields with original values). Combined with the annotations and the two-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains includeCustomFields functionally (compact output, and the default behavior of returning nonempty custom fields with IDs/names/original values) and reinforces that issueKey is a Jira issue key. It does not state the default value of true explicitly, leaving a small gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource (read a Jira issue by key) plus an enumeration of exactly what is returned: description, comments, issue links with relationships, attachment metadata, and nonempty custom fields. It is clearly separable from siblings like jira_search_issues and jira_get_comments through explicit scope statements.

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 concrete routing instructions: comments from this tool may be partial, so use jira_get_comments from startAt=0 and follow nextStartAt; set includeCustomFields=false for compact output; and it states the tool does not read or download attachment contents, which points the agent elsewhere for that need. Both the when and the when-not are explicit.

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