get_feature_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: automatic hierarchy detection, 2-level aggregation (epic→story→subtask), returned test/autotest summaries, and the prerequisite that Jira be connected.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose, return payload, hierarchy behavior, and prerequisite are all stated without filler. The most important outcome is front-loaded before supporting details.

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?

With one simple parameter, no enums, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining outputs. It lists the returned groups (Jira context, coverage stats, test cases, autotest trends) and hierarchy behavior, which is sufficient for selecting and calling the tool. Exact response shape and error handling are not specified, but they are not needed for a straightforward read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already well documented. The description further explains how jiraKey is interpreted across issue types and adds hierarchical aggregation depth ('2 levels deep: epic→story→subtask'), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get a comprehensive feature health scan by Jira issue key,' and enumerates concrete return categories, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions hierarchy aggregation and Jira connectivity, which separates it from sibling listing/coverage tools.

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?

It supplies clear invocation context: the key may be any Jira issue type, epics aggregate child issues, and Jira must be connected. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the value is distinct enough that selection is straightforward.

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