jira_list_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'List comments' without noting whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, ordering, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient.

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, waste-free sentence. While it lacks substance, it is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool. No irrelevant information is included.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent would not know what the tool returns, how to properly paginate, or what edge cases exist. This is far below the minimum viable definition.

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 adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The parameters issueKey, limit, and startAt are not explained at all, leaving the agent without crucial semantic context (e.g., format of issueKey, relationship between limit and startAt).

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 'List comments on a Jira issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like jira_add_comment, jira_get_issue, and jira_list_worklogs. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention related tools like jira_list_worklogs or jira_get_issue, nor any conditions or prerequisites for listing comments.

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