jira_dev

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a crucial safety signal, and also reveals that the result is YAML-formatted and limited to linked PRs, branches, and repositories. While it omits details like error handling, this is adequate for a simple read-only fetch.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds concrete details about content and format. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to understanding, with no fluff or 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 the tool's simplicity—one parameter, read-only, no output schema—the description provides all essential information: what is fetched, how the issue is specified, and what format to expect. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity and includes a safety disclosure.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'key' parameter with the same example (`PROJ-123`). The description repeats this example but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and precisely names the resource: 'development status for a JIRA issue by key.' It further clarifies by listing the content (linked pull requests, branches, repositories) and the output format (YAML), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_read or jira_search that fetch general issue data.

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 use case is clear from the description: call this when you need development-related information for a specific JIRA issue. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the content itself (PRs, branches, repos) strongly implies its niche, providing clear context without explicit exclusions.

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