jira_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'list' returns YAML and 'add' posts JFM markdown, but omits other behaviors like permissions, idempotency, or side effects. Partial transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and action details. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core actions and key parameter (key). It briefly mentions the 'limit' parameter via schema but does not elaborate on its effect (pagination). Overall fairly complete.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond schema: it specifies that 'list' returns YAML and 'add' posts the body, and implies body is required for add. This aids parameter understanding.

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 manages JIRA issue comments and specifies two distinct actions ('list' and 'add') with their behaviors. This differentiates it from sibling tools like jira_comment_edit.

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 implies usage for listing or adding comments but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like jira_comment_edit for edits. Usage guidance is present but incomplete.

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