jira_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format (YAML), entry structure (author, timestamp, items), and the need to resolve account IDs. It does not cover destructive potential or rate limits, but the tool is read-only by nature.

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 with two sentences plus a CLI reference, front-loaded with the purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, entry structure, and a critical nuance (author ID resolution). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds marginal value beyond schema, only noting the YAML output and author resolution. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond schema.

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 tool gets the change history for a JIRA issue, specifies the output format (YAML with entries per change), and identifies the resource (JIRA issue). It distinguishes from JIRA siblings by focusing on history/changelog.

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 provides guidance on resolving author IDs using `jira_user_get` and mentions the CLI mirror. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like `jira_read` or `jira_dev`, though the context is clear.

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