jira_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the HTTP method (GET), which establishes read-only, non-mutating semantics — the most important behavioral trait for a fetch tool. However, it says nothing about error behavior, permissions, or response handling, which is a gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 nine-word sentence with zero filler; verb and resource are front-loaded and the endpoint is parenthesized as precise supporting detail. Every word earns its place.

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 GET-by-key tool with a well-described schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and endpoint. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return-value expectations, error behavior, and routing decisions to the agent's prior Jira API knowledge — the bare minimum rather than genuinely 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 67%, leaving the `expand` parameter undocumented in both the schema and the description. The {key} placeholder in the endpoint maps to issueIdOrKey but adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing 'Key or ID, e.g. ABC-123.' The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Gets a Jira issue') and pins it down with the exact REST endpoint (GET /rest/api/3/issue/{key}). The endpoint path distinguishes it from sibling get-* tools like jira_get_transitions and jira_get_remote_issue_links, though the core phrasing largely restates the tool name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 jira_search_jql or the sibling get-* operations. The intended use case (fetch a single issue by key or ID) is implied by the verb and endpoint, but there is no when-not-to-use direction or mention of alternatives.

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