jira_explain_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. It discloses that the tool returns multiple pieces of context in one call and can include extra fields. This is sufficient for a read operation, though it could mention that it is non-destructive or note any rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the extra fields capability. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (issue details, parent, subtasks, linked issues, comments, transitions, extra fields). It is complete for a single-issue explain tool, though it could mention if there are any limits on comments or transitions returned.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'ATY-123' for issueKey, 'Criterios de aceptación' for extraFields), which helps the agent understand expected values beyond the schema type.

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 ('Devuelve') and clearly states the resource (issue) and the scope of what is returned (full context: description, parent, subtasks, linked issues, comments, transitions). It distinguishes from simpler sibling tools like jira_get_issue by emphasizing the comprehensive single-call nature.

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 states the intended use case: 'entender un ticket completo sin encadenar varias consultas' (understand a complete ticket without chaining queries). This implies when to use; it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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