jira_read

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

Clearly describes the output formats and the file-writing behavior with YAML summary, which is more than basic. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it omits details like error handling or authentication requirements.

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, no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently details the output_file alternative. 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 adequately explains the two possible return types (inline body or YAML summary). It does not cover error cases or status codes, but for a simple fetch tool these are less critical. Overall it feels sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as 'JFM markdown (default, AI-friendly)' for format and 'useful for large issues that would otherwise blow past the context window' for output_file, enriching 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?

Clearly states 'Fetch a JIRA issue' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates by mentioning two output formats (JFM markdown vs raw ADF JSON) and the output_file option, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jira_search, which could lead to confusion about when to use each.

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?

Provides guidance on using output_file for large issues to avoid context window limits, which is a helpful usage tip. However, it does not offer any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other similar tools (e.g., jira_search, jira_changelog), leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context.

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