Xray Get Issue History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the result is paginated and the history covers who/what/when including steps, definition and links.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the pagination qualifier. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly sufficient, though it could note the auth/scope requirement or that history may be empty for certain issue types.

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 all four parameters (issue, issue_type, limit, start) are fully documented with types, bounds, defaults and an enum. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus precise resource (Xray change history of an issue) and an enumerated scope of what the history contains (steps, definition, links) and when. No sibling tool covers issue change history, so it is trivially distinguishable from the get_* family.

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 purpose implies when to reach for it (auditing changes to an issue), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives are named. Adequate but inferential.

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