get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get details' is vague and does not specify what fields or data are returned, whether the issue includes comments, attachments, or only core fields, or any potential permissions or side effects. The description offers no more insight than the tool name itself.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information and is appropriately sized for the simple tool it describes.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but incomplete. It does not specify what 'details' includes, which could matter for an agent deciding whether to call this tool or use search_issues or get_comments. The description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter issueKey (e.g., 'Issue key (e.g., PROJ-123)'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies, and no additional context is given in the description.

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 a specific verb (+resource) 'Get details of a specific Jira issue', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues (multiple issues) or get_projects (projects). It leaves no ambiguity about what resource this tool targets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues for finding issues or get_project for project-level details. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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