scan_jira

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it's read-only on Jira, uploads a report, optionally uploads encrypted secrets, respects rate limits, and never outputs raw secrets. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=false due to upload, but correctly labeled as non-destructive).

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 paragraph that is informative and front-loaded but slightly dense. Every sentence adds value, though a bulleted or structured format could improve readability. No wasted words.

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 complexity (10 params, output schema exists), the description covers auth, behavior, side effects, output characteristics, and rate limits. It provides enough context for correct agent invocation without needing to infer missing details.

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 significant value by explaining that auth params can be env vars, clarifying allow_secret_upload (AES-encrypted upload for AI validation), and ai_analysis (async AI validation). These details are not in the schema descriptions.

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 reads Jira tickets and comments to detect leaked secrets, with a strong verb-resource pairing ('Read Jira tickets...'). It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by specifying the platform (Jira) and the action (scanning for secrets).

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 explicitly states when to use (to detect secrets in Jira) and when not (never modifies Jira). It provides authentication options (env vars or direct params) and mentions side effects. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state exclusions for non-secret scanning use cases.

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