jira_read_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states this is a data-only read operation ('Read raw details', 'Data-only') and explicitly says it does not post comments or guide analysis, giving confidence that it has no side effects. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or any potential rate limits, which leaves minor gaps.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states exactly what the tool does, the second clarifies its scope limitations, and the third directs to the alternative workflow. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of its purpose, the data it returns, and its distinction from siblings. It does not explain default pagination values or error handling, but those are covered in the schema. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Comment pagination offset', 'Include comments (default false)'). The tool description adds a list of returned fields (description, subtasks, changelog, labels, priority, parent, attachments) which provides context, but does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers. 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 uses a specific verb ('Read raw details') and a concrete resource ('a Jira issue'), enumerating the exact fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from jira_analyze_task, noting it does NOT guide analysis, which clearly separates it from a key sibling tool.

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 tells the reader when to use this tool vs. an alternative: 'Use jira_analyze_task when you need the full investigation workflow.' It also provides exclusions ('does NOT guide analysis or post comments'), making the usage boundary clear.

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