jira_get_changelog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies read-only, but gives no details about the response format, ordering, pagination, or any limitations. There is no mention of authentication or potential side effects, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what the returned changelog contains, how it is structured, or any usage context. While the tool is simple, the lack of output details and usage guidance makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the invocation result.

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?

The schema has one parameter (issueKey) with a pattern but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on how to specify the issue key beyond the schema's name and pattern. It adds no additional semantic meaning, so the agent must rely on the parameter name and pattern.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and field change history') for a Jira issue. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve current issue details (jira_get_issue) or available transitions (jira_get_transitions).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for change history, it does not explicitly mention contexts where it would be preferable to jira_get_issue or jira_get_transitions, nor any exclusions.

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