jira_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the tool 'safe, read-only', which is good. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid operations, permission requirements, or rate limits. The example shows correct usage but lacks edge-case context.

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 plus an example, all essential. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example clarifies usage immediately. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the two parameters adequately and provides an example. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention the return format, potential errors, or pagination. For a read tool, omitting the return structure is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description compensates. It explains that 'operation' selects the read operation and 'params' is a JSON object with parameters. The mention of operation='help' and the example add concrete meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states 'Query Jira data (safe, read-only)', which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_write and jira_delete by explicitly marking itself as read-only. However, it could be more specific about which Jira entities are queried, though the example helps.

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 advises calling with operation='help' to list available operations, which provides a discovery mechanism. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but they are clearly different (write, execute, delete). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the 'read-only' hint.

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