jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a retrieval operation ('Retrieve detailed information'), which implies it's read-only and non-destructive, but does not explicitly state this or cover other behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds value by detailing the scope of information returned, but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose clearly. The second sentence adds necessary detail about the scope of information retrieved without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context efficiently, making it concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what the tool does and the scope of data returned, which helps the agent understand the tool's function. However, it lacks details on return format or error cases, which could be useful for a read tool with no output schema, leaving minor 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'issue_key' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention parameters or their semantics. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('a specific Jira work item'), distinguishing it from siblings like jira_search (searching) or jira_update_status (modifying). It specifies the scope of information retrieved ('all fields including description, reporter, watchers, attachments, linked issues, and full history'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 by specifying 'a specific Jira work item,' suggesting it's for retrieving details of a known issue rather than searching or modifying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_search (for finding issues) or jira_comment (for interacting with an issue), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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