jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't disclose what details are returned, error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example ('e.g., PROJ-123'), making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving issue details), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential error cases, or authentication needs, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'issueKey' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples not already covered. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific Jira issue'), with the verb+resource combination being specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_search_issues' or 'jira_get_comments', which prevents a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'jira_get_issue' over 'jira_search_issues' for finding issues or 'jira_get_comments' for issue comments, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication needs.

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