karea_get_jira_link

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

Honestly declares read-only and existence condition. With no annotations, the description carries transparency burden and adequately discloses behavior. However, could elaborate on return value if no link exists (e.g., returns null).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Return', no wasted words. Highly efficient for an AI agent.

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, description adequately mentions return types (key and URL). Could specify behavior when no link exists, but overall sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'for a task', so baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it returns JIRA issue key and URL for a task, setting specific expectations. Differentiates from sibling tools like karea_link_jira (which creates the link) and karea_unlink_jira (removes it).

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?

Mentions read-only nature, providing context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking before linking). Implicitly clear but could include more direct guidance.

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