jira_get_watchers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get watchers', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose what exactly is returned (e.g., list of usernames or IDs) or any side effects. More detail is needed for a completely transparent description.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is not a tautology and contains no unnecessary words, although it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It could mention required permissions or return value structure, but is not critically incomplete.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Issue key' described, but the description does not elaborate further. 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) and resource (watchers of a Jira issue). It distinguishes from the sibling tool jira_add_watcher, indicating a read operation. However, it does not specify the format of the returned data, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools implies this is for retrieval, but there is no mention of prerequisites like issue existence or required permissions.

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