jira_get_remote_issue_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates the HTTP method (GET) and the resource, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state that multiple links are returned, what the response structure is, whether pagination exists, or how errors/no links are handled.

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 a single concise sentence with the resource front-loaded and the endpoint in parentheses. It contains no filler, but it is more of a fragment than a complete instructional sentence.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to convey what the tool returns and when to use it. It only identifies the resource and endpoint, leaving return semantics and usage context unstated.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. The endpoint template 'issue/{key}/remotelink' clarifies that issueIdOrKey is used as the path parameter, but it adds little beyond the self-descriptive property name 'issueIdOrKey' and does not specify accepted formats or behavior for invalid keys.

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 names the resource ('Remote links on an issue') and provides the exact HTTP endpoint, making it clear this retrieves remote links for a Jira issue. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_create_remote_issue_link and jira_get_issue_link_types, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch'.

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?

Usage is implied by the GET endpoint and resource name: use it when you need remote links of an issue. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of related tools like jira_get_issue_link_types or jira_get_issue, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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