jira_get_my_issues

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral details like sorting by recency and pagination support (nextPageToken). 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information: first sentence covers main function and sorting, second covers pagination. No waste.

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 covers sorting, pagination, and field selection. It lacks mention of the return structure (list of issues with fields), but the pagination token hints at the response format. Reasonably complete for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating how to use nextPageToken for pagination ('use from previous response'), which is not fully captured in schema descriptions.

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 retrieves issues assigned to the current user, sorted by most recent update, and supports pagination and field selection. This distinguishes it from siblings like jira_search_issues (arbitrary search) and jira_get_issue (single issue).

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 basic context (user's own issues, sorted by update) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with search or get_issue, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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