List Jira issue comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition, that only comments visible to the authenticated user are returned (permission-based filtering), is genuinely useful context. It omits result ordering and pagination behavior, which matter given the startAt/maxResults params.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is perfectly concise. The terseness crosses into under-specification, though: it is front-loaded but has nothing after the first clause to earn its brevity.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description should indicate the shape of returned comments and how paging works. Neither is present, and with 0% param coverage the agent is left to infer pagination semantics entirely from schema defaults.

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 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. issueKey, startAt, and maxResults are documented only by type and default values in the schema; the description adds no meaning about what issueKey identifies or how paging should be driven. With zero coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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?

States the verb and resource ('List comments') plus a scoping qualifier ('visible to the authenticated Jira user'), which is more than a pure restatement of the title. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like jira_get_issue (which may also surface comments) or jira_add_comment, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no mention of when to prefer jira_get_issue vs this tool, no prerequisite that an issueKey must be known, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that this is the read path for comments, which an agent could guess from the name alone.

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