Xray Get Precondition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the result includes the precondition's type, definition, folder and linked Tests, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid key or the size of the linked-Test set.

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 no filler; the resource and the payload it returns are stated immediately with zero redundancy.

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, the description need not describe the return shape, and the safety profile is carried by annotations, so what remains is adequate for a 2-parameter read tool. The only shortfall is the absence of any disambiguation from the sibling list tool.

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% – both the precondition key/id format and the optional 'fields' Jira field list are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Precondition') and enumerates the returned facets (type, definition, folder, linked Tests), which is more informative than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling xray_get_preconditions (plural list tool), leaving the singular/plural routing to be inferred from the name.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as xray_get_preconditions for listing or xray_get_expanded_test for deeper traversal. The agent must infer that this is the single-entity fetch from the name and parameter shape.

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