get_ticket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns standard fields, description, and populated custom fields, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects (though it is clearly read-only).

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. The existence of sibling tools does not demand additional disambiguation here.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains issue_key with an example format, but does not describe include_noisy_custom_fields or its effect. The mention of 'populated custom fields' hints at the parameter's purpose but is not explicit about when to set it.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'Jira ticket', and the identifier 'by key (e.g. INFOSEC-2239)'. It distinguishes from search_tickets and get_child_issues which are sibling tools for different purposes.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single ticket by exact key, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like search_tickets for querying or get_child_issues for subtasks. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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