Xray Get Coverable Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response includes both coverage status and the covering Tests, but says nothing about how coverage is computed or what happens when version/test_plan/environment scoping is combined.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and result front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool with several scoping options, but nothing is wasted.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover safety. However, for a tool with six parameters offering version, test-plan, environment and final-status scoping, one sentence leaves the agent without guidance on how those modes interact or which combinations are meaningful.

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 every parameter including version, is_final, test_plan and environment is already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or interaction hints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the coverage status of a requirement / story and the Tests covering it'), so an agent knows it returns coverage data plus linked tests. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling xray_get_coverable_issues, leaving the singular/plural boundary to be inferred.

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 indication of when to use this versus xray_get_coverable_issues, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid Jira issue key. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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