issues_get_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: for Jira Epics, the response includes a childIssues array. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention error/not found behavior.

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: first line states main purpose, second line adds a key special case. No fluff, front-loaded, efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return structure. It only mentions childIssues for Jira Epics, leaving other providers' responses unspecified. Also lacks guidance on optional parameters like azure_organization. Adequate but with gaps.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed information about a specific issue', and differentiates from siblings by mentioning Jira Epic childIssues behavior. It is specific and distinguishes from tools like issues_assigned_to_me.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single issue by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like issues_assigned_to_me (list) or pull_request_get_detail. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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