Get Issue Forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by mentioning the 'new Jira Forms REST API' and that 'Form IDs are returned as UUIDs.' This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the API version and return format, though it does not cover pagination or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds relevant behavioral context in the second sentence. There is no wasted or redundant content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does, the API used, and return format. It could mention alternatives or edge cases, but that is not essential given the rich structured data.

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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (issue_key) with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('all ProForma forms') and scope ('associated with a Jira issue'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_proforma_form_details, which would focus on a single form's details rather than listing all forms for an issue.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need all forms for an issue), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the presence of a closely related sibling (jira_get_proforma_form_details), the lack of explicit differentiation is a minor gap.

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