jira_comments_list

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

Annotations already have readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds that results are sorted newest-first by default and specifies the return format, providing context beyond annotations. There is no contradictory or missing behavioral information.

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 very concise: two short sentences and a return format string. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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, the presence of an output schema (as shown), and good annotations, the description covers purpose, return structure, and defaults. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description only repeats the default sorting (order_by), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Hence baseline 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 tool lists comments on a Jira issue, specifies return fields (issue_key, total, comments with id, author, body, created, updated), and mentions default sorting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_comments_add (adds comments) and others.

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 usage for listing comments on a specific issue but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks explicit usage guidance.

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