jira_get_issue

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

The description discloses that optional parameters cause 'extra API call(s)', which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or permissions. It partially carries the transparency burden.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the format makes it easy to parse.

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 simple retrieval tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers functionality, optional behaviors, and return contents. It lacks details on errors or permissions, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains issue_key with an example format and describes the boolean flags include_subtasks and include_transitions, adding clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 detailed information about a specific JIRA issue' with the specific resource (issue key) and what details are included (comments and links). It is distinguished from sibling tools like search, create, update, and transition.

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 tool's purpose of retrieving a single issue by key is evident, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives statement. The description implies usage for getting detailed info on a known issue, which is clear yet not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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