get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' which hints at a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance hints to fully guide the agent.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'issue_key' by explaining it's 'The issue key (e.g., 'PROJ-123'),' which clarifies the expected format and provides an example. Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only lists the parameter without description), this compensates well, though it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific Jira issue.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Jira issue'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_issues' or 'search_issues', which also retrieve issue information but with different scopes or filters.

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 by specifying it's for 'a specific Jira issue,' suggesting it should be used when you have an exact issue key. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_my_issues' (for user-specific issues) or 'search_issues' (for broader queries), leaving some ambiguity for the agent in selecting the right tool.

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