get_related_issues

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the safety profile with 'Read-only,' which is genuinely useful here, but it says nothing about result size, pagination, whether subtask traversal is recursive, or permission requirements for linked issues.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the resource and its contents, followed by a two-word safety qualifier. Nothing is padded and nothing is buried.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by naming what comes back (issue links, subtasks, parent) and flagging read-only access. Small gaps remain around volume and nested/recursive behavior, but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

There is a single required parameter (issue_key) with 100% schema description coverage including a DEMO-123 format example. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (issues linked to a Jira issue) and then enumerates the exact relationship types returned: issue links, subtasks, and parent. That enumeration makes it readily separable from get_issue (the issue record itself) and search_issues (query-driven lookup).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs relationship data around a known issue key. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_issue, no mention of preconditions (e.g. the issue must exist or be visible), and no exclusions.

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