get_issue_types

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds only that the result includes keys ("их ключи"), a small amount of extra context, and says nothing about caching, stability, or permissions. Adequate but thin given the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema, and every word earns its place.

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 0-parameter reference-data lookup with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing element is a pointer to the workflow context (e.g., that these keys feed create_issue/update_issue), which would make it fully self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param schema is 4. No parameter behavior is misrepresented or omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("get valid issue types and their keys"), making the retrieval target unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling lookups like get_statuses, get_priorities, or get_resolutions, but the resource noun is distinct enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no hint that these values are needed before create_issue or update_issue. The word "valid" faintly implies reference-data lookup, but nothing is stated.

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