jira_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the output is a 'compact view' and lists the fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or whether it returns full or partial data beyond the listed fields. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear list of output fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant wording or filler.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It accurately conveys what the tool returns and in what format (compact view with specified fields), which is sufficient for an LLM to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'issue_key', with an example. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond listing 'key' in the output. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('one issue'), and enumerates the exact fields included. This distinguished it from siblings like jira_search_issues (which returns multiple issues) and jira_add_comment (which writes).

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: you need an issue key to fetch a single issue. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use this when you have a known issue key; use jira_search_issues to find issues by query.' Thus, usage context is implied but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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