Get Issue Watchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the purpose (e.g., permissions, output details). It is consistent with the annotation, making this score acceptable but not exceptional.

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 no wasted words. It directly and efficiently communicates the tool's function 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with complete schema coverage and output schema), the description is sufficient. A small enhancement could mention the return format, but the output schema exists, so the description need not explain it. Overall, complete for the tool's complexity.

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% for the single parameter issue_key, including a pattern and example. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, 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 'Get the list of watchers for a Jira issue' clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of watchers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_add_watcher, jira_remove_watcher, and jira_get_issue. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever you need the watchers of an issue) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Given the presence of related sibling tools (add/remove watchers), more explicit guidance would improve the score, but a clear context is still conveyed.

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