jira_extract_links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it scans the issue's description, optionally comments and remote links, and returns grouped links. This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the scanning scope and output grouping.

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 concise: a one-sentence overview, a bullet list of what it scans, and use cases. It is well-structured and front-loaded with essential information, with no redundant words.

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 complexity (1 required parameter, output schema with grouped links, annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it scans, use cases, and the output format is implied. No gaps remain.

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 0%, but the input schema itself provides descriptions for all parameters (issue_key, include_comments, include_remote_links, response_format). According to rules, when schema coverage is high (all parameters described in schema), baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Find every Confluence, Git, or other URL referenced by a Jira issue.' It specifies the action (finding URLs) and the resource (Jira issue), and distinguishes from siblings like jira_get_issue by focusing on extracting links rather than retrieving the issue itself.

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 provides use cases ('What design docs are linked from PROJ-123?', 'Which repos does this story touch?') and explains what it scans (description, optionally comments, remote links). It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for appropriate use.

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