get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read operation ('retrieve') and mentions it gets 'detailed information,' but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid issue keys. The description adds some context about what data is included but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, while the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 this is a read operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool that retrieves 'detailed information' with multiple parameters, the description should ideally provide more context about what constitutes a complete response.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' which aligns with the parameters but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage guidance for them.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'specific Jira issue' with specific details included (status, assignee, description, comments, workflow data). It distinguishes from siblings like get_comments (which only gets comments) or get_transitions (which only gets workflow data) by specifying it retrieves comprehensive issue information.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to get current state before making updates'), which implicitly suggests it should be used before update_issue, transition_issue, or similar mutation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for partial data retrieval.

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