get_jira_issue_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'get's links from Snowflake' but does not clarify side effects, permissions required, error handling for invalid keys, or whether it is read-only. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation-free assurance.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, then structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative with no waste. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple tool with 1 parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the input format and hints at the output type. However, it lacks error handling details and full return structure, but given the presence of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds an example ('SMQE-1280') and clarifies the expected format (JIRA issue key), which meaningfully supplements the schema. This is well above the baseline of 3 for high-coverage cases.

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', the resource 'issue links', and the specific identifier 'by its key' and source 'from Snowflake'. It is distinct from siblings like get_jira_issue_details (details vs links) and list_jira_issues (all issues vs one link).

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 implies usage for retrieving links of a specific issue, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over sibling tools like get_jira_issue_details or list_jira_issues. No when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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