list_jira_finding_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are paginated (limit/offset) and filterable, and 'List' implies a read operation, but it does not state read-only safety, permissions/auth needs, or ordering guarantees. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. No redundant or filler text; every line earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return-value format need not be described, and all parameters are covered. The main gap is the absence of usage context (when to reach for this tool vs JIRA/finding siblings), but functionally the agent has enough to invoke 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 compensate, and it does document all four parameters (finding_id, jira_key, limit, offset) with their roles. The explanations are terse, but they cover every parameter the schema leaves bare.

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 and resource ('List JIRA finding mappings') and immediately clarifies the concept ('links between findings and JIRA issues'). This distinguishes it from the many finding- and JIRA-instance/project siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only enumerates filter arguments, leaving the agent to infer that this is the tool for inspecting finding-to-JIRA links versus related siblings like get_jira_instance or list_jira_projects.

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