jira_get_board_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions the basic operation, omitting what happens during pagination (start_at, max_results are in schema but not explained), whether issues are limited to a specific status, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise (8 words). While not verbose, it underspecifies the tool's behavior and parameters, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's complexity (4 parameters, pagination), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return format, pagination behavior, or how results are ordered, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 description coverage is 50% (jql and board_id have descriptions; start_at and max_results only have defaults). The description adds no extra meaning for parameters and does not explain the pagination parameters, which are critical for correct usage.

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 action (get issues) and resource (Jira board) with an optional JQL filter. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jira_search_issues or jira_get_sprint_issues.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_search_issues, jira_get_sprint_issues) or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the sibling list.

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