Get Issue Development Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context that this retrieves data from connected source control systems (Bitbucket, GitHub, GitLab) and shows the development panel info. No contradictions with annotations, and the added context helps the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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, two sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every word adds value, no redundancy or irrelevant details. It perfectly balances brevity with necessary context.

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 read-only annotation, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the domain (development panel info from source control systems) and clarifies what kind of data to expect. No major gaps are present.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of PRs/commits/branches provides some context for the data_type parameter and the type of information retrieved, but it adds little beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('development information') linked to a Jira issue, explicitly enumerating PRs, commits, and branches. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic issue retrieval tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the plural sibling tool jira_get_issues_development_info.

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 provides clear context: this is for retrieving development panel information for a specific Jira issue, with an issue_key required. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the plural sibling tool jira_get_issues_development_info, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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