structure_getValues

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the HTTP endpoint (POST /rest/structure/2.0/value) and default attributes, enriching the agent's behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence contributes useful information. Zero 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?

With rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and defaults. It lacks an explicit return format, but no output schema exists, so this is not critical. The tool is simple enough that the description is adequately complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that row ids come from structure_getForest and that attributes have defaults (key, summary, status, issuetype), which clarifies parameter context without repeating schema details.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Load Structure attribute values for row ids' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing structure_getForest for row ids, clarifying the tool's niche.

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?

It provides a key usage instruction: 'Get row ids from structure_getForest.' This establishes a clear prerequisite and workflow. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives to avoid, but for a read-only value loader this is sufficient guidance.

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