jira_get_remote_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note on what happens for issues with no links, no return shape. For a read-only list tool this leaves the description doing little 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place; nothing redundant.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter read-only list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. It stops short of 5 only because pagination or result-scope behavior is never hinted at.

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% and the single 'key' parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example, so the schema carries the burden. The description only implicitly ties the issue key to the target issue and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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), resource (remote links), and scope (attached to an issue), and adds a concrete example (Confluence pages) that separates it from the similarly-named jira_get_link_types, jira_link_issues, and jira_create_remote_link siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'attached to an issue' — the agent can infer it reads existing remote links for one issue — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives such as jira_get_link_types for link metadata.

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