listJiraIssues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieves a list of issues,' which implicitly indicates a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, maxResults limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation 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 a single 16-word sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information, fitting the conciseness ideal.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the return format (fields like key, summary, status), ordering, pagination behavior, and error semantics. For a list tool with this complexity, the description should provide more operational context to be considered complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (jql and maxResults) with high coverage (100%). The description adds marginal context by mentioning 'from a Jira project or using a JQL query,' but this could confuse users because there is no project parameter in the schema. It does not significantly augment the schema's parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'a list of issues from a Jira project or using a JQL query.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like readJiraProject (which reads a single project) and createJiraIssue (which creates issues). The two modes (project or JQL) add clarity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listJiraProjects or readJiraProject. It implies usage for retrieving issues but does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or trade-offs. It also fails to clarify that a 'project' filter is achieved through JQL rather than a dedicated parameter, which is a missed opportunity.

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