Get Cross-Project Dependencies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it scans issues, extracts cross-project links, and groups them by target project and link type. It does not contradict the annotations; a minor caveat about the max_issues limit exists but is left to the schema.

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 few short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. It states the core purpose, the behavioral details, and the use case in a compact, logical structure.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and usage context. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including project_key format and max_issues range and default. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all cross-project issue links for a project.' It then details the scanning, extraction, and grouping behavior, clearly distinguishing it from generic tools like jira_get_project_issues or jira_get_link_types.

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 states 'Useful for dependency analysis across multi-project Jira setups,' which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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