jira_get_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states this is a fetch operation (safe, read-only) and explicitly lists the returned data fields, including 'all custom fields'. It does not mention error handling or response structure, but for a simple, non-destructive retrieval, the description provides adequate transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and then lists return fields. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 tool is simple (one param, no output schema) and the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The list of return fields provides some expectations, though it does not describe the response shape or potential errors. Given the low complexity, this is fairly complete.

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 single parameter issueKey is fully described in the schema with format and example (PROJECT-NNN). The description references 'by issue key' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 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 'Fetch' and identifies the resource 'Jira story by issue key', making the tool's primary purpose unmistakable. It also enumerates the return fields, further clarifying scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search_stories (search) and jira_update_story_status (update).

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 clearly implies usage: use when you need a single Jira story by key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., use search when you don't have a key), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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