jira_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the output format (YAML with author, timestamp, items) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not detail authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but sufficient given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output format and a useful reference. No extraneous information; every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format (YAML with key fields). The limit parameter is explained in the schema. Missing details about pagination or error handling, but overall adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 clear parameter descriptions for 'key' and 'limit'. The tool description adds only the output format and CLI reference, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 it retrieves change history for a JIRA issue, specifying the verb 'Get', the resource 'change history', and the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the changelog, and provides a reference to a CLI mirror.

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 includes a reference to a CLI mirror ('omni-dev atlassian jira changelog') which implies usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with similar tools are provided.

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