jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a read operation (get) and lists the returned data. It omits potential details like idempotency or authentication, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output.

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, the description adequately explains what is returned (status, assignee, description, comments, transitions). It could mention other common fields like dates, but the listed items cover key aspects.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of issue_key. Baseline score of 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 action 'Get full details of a Jira issue' and lists specific details (status, assignee, description, comments, transitions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_comments and jira_get_transitions, which are more narrow.

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 when to use (when full details are needed), but does not explicitly guide when not to use or mention alternatives for partial data. For example, if only transitions are needed, jira_get_transitions would be more appropriate.

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