jira_link_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns YAML with specific fields and lists inward and outward links. It doesn't mention limitations or side effects, but as a read operation, the behavior is well implied.

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 concise and front-loaded sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, describing the output, and referencing the CLI equivalent.

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 (1 param, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the output format and purpose. An output schema would be nice but is not required.

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 has 1 parameter (key) with 100% description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so no extra value is added.

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 lists inward and outward links on a JIRA issue, specifies the return format (YAML with fields), and mentions it mirrors a CLI command. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_link_create and jira_link_remove.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. It only describes the tool's function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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