jira_my_tasks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List') and scopes results to the authenticated user, implying safe usage. It does not mention pagination details or response format, but these are partially covered by the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence without any wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key optional filter.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and filter. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but the response_format parameter in the schema addresses that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the 'status' filter. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'Jira issues assigned to the currently authenticated user', which is specific and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jira_search_issues or jira_read_task. The optional status filter further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 clearly states that the tool lists issues assigned to the current user, giving a solid context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 due to lack of 'when not to use' guidance.

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