get_issue_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the tool returns full details of an issue, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists key content, and provides a usage note. Every part is useful and concise.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (description, comments, sub-tasks, priority, status) and when to use it. It is complete for its purpose.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the single parameter (issueKey). The tool description does not add additional information beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 specifies the verb 'đọc' (read) and the resource 'Jira issue detail', listing included fields (description, comments, sub-tasks, priority, status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_issues or get_current_user.

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 advises using the tool before analyzing or implementing a task, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied contrast with sibling tools.

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