jira_get_issue_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details about the output (map, nodes, edges, Mermaid diagram) but does not disclose potential performance implications or link traversal limits beyond schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the use case. Every sentence is valuable and concise with no wasted words.

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 briefly mentions the return format (map, nodes, edges, Mermaid) but lacks details on structure (e.g., keys in map, fields in nodes/edges). With 6 parameters and a graph tool, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool builds a dependency/relationship graph from a seed issue and returns a map with nodes, edges, and a Mermaid diagram. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_search_issues, which are for single issues or search, making it unique for connectivity analysis.

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 says 'Use this to understand how issues are connected across epics, stories, and subtasks,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the sibling list implies alternatives for simpler needs.

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