jira_get_issue_changelog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns change history, which is consistent but minimal. It does not describe pagination, filtering, or other behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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 9-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no redundancy or unnecessary text, earning high marks for conciseness.

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 simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details that would be helpful for an agent, such as whether the changelog is paginated or limited to a certain date range. It does not leverage the context of sibling tools to differentiate 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the input schema itself has thorough descriptions for both parameters (issue_key format, response_format enum). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return the change history of a Jira issue,' specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource 'change history of a Jira issue.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (issue details) and jira_get_issue_comments (comments), providing clear purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for using changelog over other Jira issue-related tools, nor does it indicate any prerequisites or restrictions.

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