Xray Get Coverable Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated, which annotations do not convey, but says nothing about how coverage is computed, default page size, or the interaction between version/test_plan/environment scoping.

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 the resource stated first and the pagination constraint last; no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the tool's nine parameters.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. But for a 9-parameter search tool whose behavior depends on coverage-scoping inputs (version, test_plan, environment, is_final), the description omits how these shape the result, leaving an inference gap.

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 (jql, limit, start, fields, issues, version, is_final, test_plan, environment) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (coverable issues: requirements, stories) plus the returned dimension (coverage status). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling xray_get_coverable_issue (singular), leaving the agent to infer the plural/singular split 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or exclusions, and no mention of the singular get_coverable_issue alternative or when a bulk/paginated search is preferable to a single-issue lookup. Only the '(paginated)' hint implies usage context.

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