jira_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs read operations and provides usage examples, but does not mention idempotency, response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The examples help but leave behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted list of resource_type options, and multiple examples. It is front-loaded and each element serves a purpose. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating 'resource_type=' in examples) keeps it clear but not overly concise.

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 (8 resource types) and lack of output schema, the description covers each resource type with an example and key parameters. However, it omits details about default values (e.g., limit=20), optional fields, pagination, and response structure, leaving some gaps for a comprehensive understanding.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by mapping each resource_type to the appropriate parameters with concrete examples. For instance, it clarifies that 'issue' requires 'issue_key', 'search' uses 'jql', and 'user' uses 'query'. This conditional parameter usage is not evident from the schema alone.

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 'Read Jira issues, projects, users, or boards' with a specific verb and resource scope. It then lists all 8 resource_type options with brief explanations, effectively distinguishing this read tool from sibling write tools like jira_create, jira_update, and jira_delete.

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 implicit usage guidance through examples for each resource_type (e.g., 'resource_type="issue" issue_key="KAN-42"'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' or exclusionary context.

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