jira_get_issue_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It effectively signals a read-only operation through the verb 'Get,' and adds useful detail about the return format (paginated list, author, timestamp). It does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, but the word 'Get' strongly implies a safe read, and the pagination caveat is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides essential return information. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details, making it an efficiently structured, appropriately sized description.

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 simple 3-parameter tool and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It includes the return format and the key example, though it could optionally elaborate on how pagination behaves (e.g., how to retrieve all pages using startAt/maxResults). In the absence of an output schema, the description suffices for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description's mention of 'by its key' mirrors the schema's example, and the pagination implications are already described in startAt/maxResults. Thus, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('comments for a specific JIRA issue'), and the required identifier (issue key, with an example). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_get_issue_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?

The description clearly establishes when to use the tool (when you need all comments for a given issue) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The context is unambiguous, but it stops short of explicitly stating 'use this instead of jira_get_issue for comments' or noting cases where it might be inappropriate.

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