get_issue_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'Returns list of issue types', which indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose additional traits such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or the structure of returned data. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence of eight words. It contains no redundant or filler content, effectively communicating the tool's purpose with minimal length.

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's low complexity and that the schema documents both parameters with examples, the description provides the essential purpose. However, the lack of annotations leaves out read-only safety, return format, and authentication details, which is a minor gap for such a simple getter.

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 covers both parameters (projectId and projectKey) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as which identifier to use or what happens if neither is provided. 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 'Returns' and identifies a concrete resource 'list of issue types' with scope 'for a project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_priorities or get_categories.

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 phrase 'for a project' implies the tool requires a project context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_priorities. There is no mention of required parameters or how to choose between projectId and projectKey.

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