jira_analyze_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's range of actions: reading issues/comments/attachments, idempotency detection, template selection, and a step-by-step SOP culminating in posting a comment. This provides substantial transparency about behavior, though it does not explicitly warn about side effects or output details.

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 four sentences, with a clear lead, a compact list of capabilities, and a specific usage directive. Every sentence adds distinct information; there is no fluff or 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?

The tool is complex with a multi-step workflow, and the description covers many aspects: accepted input, data sources, idempotency, template selection, and SOP steps. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns beyond 'provides step-by-step SOP,' leaving the actual return value ambiguous. This gap prevents a 5.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all four params. The description only reiterates the input format (issue key or URL) in the same words, adding no extra semantic meaning. Therefore, baseline 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 opens with 'Full investigation and fix workflow for a Jira issue,' which clearly names the verb (analyze/fix) and resource (Jira issue). It further differentiates from the sibling by directing users to 'use this instead of jira_read_task when you want to drive the full workflow end-to-end,' making the tool's purpose distinct and specific.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool over jira_read_task, providing a clear alternative. It also describes the workflow steps (explore → plan → implement → verify → comment), giving context on appropriate usage scenarios. No exclusion criteria are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient.

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