jira_workflows_get_scheme_mappings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the 'Get' action. The description adds value by explicitly detailing the return structure (scheme_id, default_workflow, mappings), providing behavioral context 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line return format example. No unnecessary information, perfectly 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?

For a simple read tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, input, and return format. No gaps.

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 single required parameter (scheme_id). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's 'Workflow scheme ID', so 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 clearly states 'Get issue type to workflow mappings in a workflow scheme' with specific verb and resource, and differentiates well from sibling tools like jira_workflows_get_schemes and jira_workflows_set_scheme_issuetype.

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 viewing mappings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_workflows_set_scheme_issuetype for modifications or jira_workflows_get_schemes for listing schemes.

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