Contexto de una issue Jira

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

The description declares the tool is read-only and lists the data it returns. With no annotations provided, it adequately discloses the behavioral traits (no destructive actions). It does not cover edge cases like missing issues or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is sufficient.

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 clear sentence plus a usage instruction. Every word adds value; there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains what it does, what it returns, and when to invoke it. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the primary use case for issueKey (pass when user types a Jira key) and mapping the returned content to parameters (includeComments, includeImages).

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 it returns read-only context of a specific Jira issue, listing the exact fields (title, description, comments, image attachments). It uses specific verbs and resources, and provides usage guidance for invoking with a Jira key. Since no sibling tools exist, differentiation is not needed.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Cuando el usuario escriba una clave Jira en el chat, pasala como issueKey.' This gives clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the lack of siblings makes this less critical.

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