jira_list_backlog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination, result ordering, backlog scope definition, or whether it returns issue summaries or full issues – so it leaves the full behavioral burden on structured fields.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety. Yet for a listing tool with many sibling listers, the absence of scope/pagination/ordering detail leaves an agent without enough to confidently choose or invoke it.

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% for the single boardId parameter, and the description adds no format or semantics beyond 'a board'. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, this is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backlog of a board'), so an agent knows what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling listing tools like jira_get_board_issues or jira_list_boards, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling listers (jira_get_board_issues, jira_list_boards, jira_get_sprint_issues) or versus the mutation sibling jira_move_issues_to_backlog. No context or exclusions are given.

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