jira_get_issue

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), which is non-destructive. With no annotations, it carries the burden of transparency, but it lacks details on error handling (e.g., when issue not found) or response structure. Still, it is clear enough for a simple get tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 description, combined with the rich schema, is adequate for a simple get tool. It could mention the return format (e.g., 'Returns a full issue object'), but the default fields are already listed in the schema. Overall, it meets the needs without significant 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 detailed descriptions for both parameters. The main description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the optional field specification. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific Jira issue by key', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions optional field specification, distinguishing it from search tools like jira_search_issues.

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 retrieving a single issue by key, and the optional fields parameter suggests selective retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like jira_search_issues or jira_get_fields, although context from sibling tools is available.

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