jira_permissions_get_scheme

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the return structure ({id, name, description, permissions}) and listing common permission keys. No contradictions with annotations. It does not detail rate limits or auth requirements, but for this simple read tool, the added value is sufficient.

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?

Very concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of keys and return structure. Front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema description, it is largely complete. It lacks mention of error cases (e.g., invalid scheme ID) or pagination, but these are minor given the simplicity. The description adequately prepares the agent for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, scheme_id, is documented in the schema as 'Permission scheme ID from jira_permissions_list_schemes.' The description complements this by listing common permission keys and the return format, giving the agent a clear understanding of the input and output. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the extra context justifies a 4.

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 'Get a permission scheme with all its permission grants,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like jira_permissions_list_schemes (which lists schemes) and jira_permissions_add_grant by focusing on retrieval of a single scheme.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies it is for retrieving a specific scheme by ID, and the sibling list tool is for listing all schemes. Lack of explicit when-not or prerequisites keeps it from a higher score.

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