jira_get_issue

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation by stating 'Retrieve details'. It adds behavioral context by listing the returned fields (status, assignee, etc.), which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The key action and usage trigger are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the main returned fields. The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential retrieval use case. It could mention potential errors or access requirements, but the current level is adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the issueKey can be a URL or key and by listing the fields returned, which helps the agent understand the output format. However, it does not elaborate on the 'expand' or 'fields' parameters beyond the schema.

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 specifies the action ('Retrieve details'), the resource ('a specific Jira issue'), and the input forms ('key or URL'). It lists returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like jira_search_issues.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when the user mentions an issue like ... or pastes a Jira link'. While it does not indicate when not to use it, the clear usage scenario is sufficient. Alternatives are implied by the sibling list.

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