Get Project Issues

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

Given the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose that pagination parameters (limit/start_at) mean 'all' issues may not be returned in a single call, nor does it describe the response structure. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value.

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 one concise sentence, 'Get all issues for a specific Jira project,' with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With annotations confirming read-only behavior and an output schema presumably documenting return values, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on differentiating from similar issue-listing tools (board, sprint, queue), and it does not mention pagination, so it is not fully complete for a tool with many siblings.

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%, with clear descriptions for project_key, limit, and start_at. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all issues for a specific Jira project'), which distinguishes it from related tools like jira_get_board_issues (board scope), jira_get_queue_issues (queue scope), and jira_search (cross-project search).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the result is scoped to a single project or that jira_search should be used for broader queries, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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