jira_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it returns YAML with one entry per change (author, timestamp, items) and notes that the author is an Atlassian account ID needing resolution via jira_user_get. This goes beyond a generic 'get history' and helps the agent understand the output shape and a follow-up step, though it doesn't discuss pagination or potential errors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Each sentence adds value: the purpose, the output format, the author ID caveat, and the mirroring to a known CLI command. It is compact and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and highlights an important nuance (author IDs). Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of 'author, timestamp, items' is valuable. It could be slightly more complete by explaining the 'items' structure, but it is sufficient for a straightforward changelog fetcher.

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% — both `key` and `limit` are described with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get the change history for a JIRA issue.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_read or jira_search by focusing on history/changelog. It also mentions the YAML return format, further clarifying its unique output.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, and the only related tool reference (jira_user_get) is for post-processing author IDs, not for choosing between history and other query methods. The 'Mirrors omni-dev...' line is provenance, not usage guidance.

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