get_issue_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (type names, IDs, descriptions, workflow info) and the prerequisite nature for creating issues, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return details, but lacks information on error cases or system behavior, which could be helpful for an agent.

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 documents the projectKey parameter. The description adds marginal value by implying the parameter is used to scope issue types to a specific project, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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' and resource 'all available issue types' with specific examples (Bug, Story, Task, Epic). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue (single issue) or get_projects (different resource) by focusing on issue types for a project.

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?

Explicitly states 'Required before creating issues to know valid issueType values,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also references get_projects as an alternative for finding project keys, though not for the same purpose.

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