listJiraIssues

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 only states that it retrieves a list, with no mention of pagination, response format, result limits (beyond the schema default), or any side effects. This is a notable gap for a tool that will be invoked programmatically.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately terse for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and the schema is rich, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the basic function but does not specify the shape of the returned list (e.g., full issue objects vs. summaries). This is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some ambiguity.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (jql with an example, maxResults with a default). The description adds only the conceptual framing of 'project or JQL', which is already implicit. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves a list') and identifies the resource ('issues from a Jira project or using a JQL query'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like listJiraProjects (which lists projects) and create/update Jira issue tools.

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 clearly indicates the tool's two primary use cases: listing issues from a project or via JQL. This provides enough context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is differentiated enough among siblings.

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