jira_link_remote_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and details the YAML return structure (fields like id, global_id, relationship, object.{url,title,summary,icon}). This provides substantial behavioral context beyond the bare schema. Lacks only minor details like pagination or error behavior, which are not critical for this simple listing tool.

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 sentences: the first fronts the main purpose and scope, the second adds return format and an equivalence note. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It's concise, scannable, 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?

For a simple one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key aspects: what kind of links are listed, the read-only nature, and the exact YAML shape. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. Slight gap: no explicit statement about behavior when there are no remote links or on error, but that's minor for this use case.

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 input schema provides a description for the single 'key' parameter (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states. No compensation needed because the schema already documents the parameter clearly.

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 action ('List') and resource ('remote (external URL) links on a JIRA issue'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'links pointing out to non-JIRA resources' (e.g., Confluence pages, Bitbucket PRs). This is a specific verb+resource pairing with clear scope, differentiating it from jira_link_list and other link-related tools.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to see external URL links on a JIRA issue, not internal JIRA links. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope is well-defined and the read-only nature helps guide selection. A 5 would require explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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