get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., fields returned, pagination, error handling for invalid keys). For a read operation without annotations, this lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get detailed information about a Jira issue by its key or ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a Jira issue retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, how errors are handled, or the response structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex data.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'issueKey' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that it accepts 'key or ID' but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'search_issues' by focusing on retrieving a single issue by identifier rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes 'detailed information' (e.g., fields, comments, attachments).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by its key or ID,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving known issues rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_issues' (for unknown issues) or 'get_comments' (for specific issue components). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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