jira_get_board_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond that safe-read implication. It does not explain pagination behavior despite a maxResults parameter, nor how jql interacts with board scope. With annotations lowering the bar, the description still contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all parameters are schema-documented. However, for a list tool sitting among search_issues, get_sprint_issues and list_backlog, the description omits any routing or pagination nuance an agent would need to choose 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%, so all three parameters (jql with example, boardId as numeric id, maxResults page size) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (issues) with a scoping qualifier (on a board), which distinguishes it from jira_search_issues and jira_get_sprint_issues by resource scope. However, it does not name or contrast with those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over jira_search_issues or jira_get_sprint_issues, and no prerequisites stated. The only routing signal is the implied 'board' scope in the purpose sentence.

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