jira_board_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output format ('Returns YAML') and the board-wide scope, which are both useful. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, or permission requirements, though the schema covers limit semantics. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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 concise at three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second conveys JQL acceptance and output format, and the third provides the alternative tool and mirror command. No filler or redundancy exists.

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 list tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, output format, and an alternative. It could have mentioned limit behavior or edge cases, but the schema already handles limit semantics, and the YAML output note compensates for the missing output schema.

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 100% description coverage across all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description simply restates that a JQL filter is optional and clarifies the board-wide scope in relation to the board_id, but it does not add deeper parameter-level nuance beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('JIRA agile board') with explicit scope ('every issue on the board, across its backlog and all its sprints'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool by naming 'jira_sprint_issues' for the alternate use case, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use an alternative: 'To scope to a single sprint's issues instead, use jira_sprint_issues.' This gives clear usage direction. The reference to the mirrored CLI command ('Mirrors omni-dev atlassian jira board issues') also helps users familiar with that interface understand expectations.

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