get_issue_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states a basic read operation without mentioning that it is non-destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a simple query, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence and is not verbose. It could benefit from slight expansion (e.g., clarifying that issue types are categories like Bug, Feature) without losing conciseness.

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 omits critical context: none of the parameters are required, yet logically at least one of projectId or projectKey should be provided. No output format or return structure is indicated, and the optional organization parameter is not explained further. This leaves ambiguity for agent invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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 the action (returns list) and resource (issue types for a project). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_categories or get_custom_fields, which also return lists of configurable items. A more explicit differentiation would elevate the score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling get_* tools, an agent would benefit from hints like 'Use this to list the issue type names and IDs available in a project' or mention of required parameters.

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