Get Board Issues

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description only adds the board scope and JQL filtering. It does not disclose that 'all issues' is subject to limit/pagination (limit max 50) or clarify any nuances like default field selection. The description adds some value but not rich behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core purpose efficiently and earns its place without redundancy.

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 rich schema, output schema, and readOnly annotation, the minimal description is mostly sufficient for understanding the tool's function. However, with six parameters and closely related sibling tools, a bit more context on tool selection or pagination would improve completeness. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, meaning all six parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'filtered by JQL' adds no new information beyond what the jql parameter description already provides. No compensation needed, but also no added value.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('issues linked to a specific board'), and modifier ('filtered by JQL'). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like jira_search (all issues), jira_get_project_issues, and 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?

Usage context is implied by the board scope, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like jira_search or jira_get_project_issues. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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