Get Jira Issue Changelog

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses result ordering, a hard cap of maxResults, the tie-breaking rule that entries sharing the last timestamp stay together, and the truncation flag. Without an output schema, that payload and paging disclosure is doing real work.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the paging rule. No filler; every clause carries either contract or recovery information.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (entries, items, truncated) and the exact continuation procedure, so an agent can both interpret and page results without guessing. Nothing material is left out for a 3-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic detail the schema lacks: `since` is strictly-after, and `maxResults` selects the oldest matches with same-timestamp grouping. The only gap is that it does not restate the issueKey key format, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a Jira issue's field-change history") plus an ordering guarantee ("oldest first") that immediately distinguishes it from sibling jcm_getIssue and jcm_editIssue. An agent can tell this is a read of audit-style change records rather than current field values.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance for the paging loop: "if truncated, call again with since = last returned created," which is the main decision an agent faces here. It stops short of naming when to prefer jcm_getIssue or which sibling answers 'current state' questions, so it is clear-context but not full when/when-not routing.

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