jira_scriptrunner_run

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false signals that this is not a read-only operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose that running a custom endpoint may execute arbitrary server-side logic, what side effects or permissions are involved, or how errors are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters are fully described by the schema.

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?

The tool executes an arbitrary custom endpoint with a nested payload and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits critical context about safety, permissions, side effects, and usage relative to siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to call this tool confidently.

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 both parameters are well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run' a 'ScriptRunner custom endpoint.' An agent can understand the basic action, but the description does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like jira_request or explain what a ScriptRunner endpoint is, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus other Jira request or scripting tools.

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