jira_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the effect of the fullDescription parameter (truncation) and mentions 'recent comments', but does not specify recency limits, pagination for attachments, authentication needs, or error behavior. Adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information about what the tool returns and how to use related tools. Highly efficient.

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 lists the key return fields (summary, description, status, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. It also references a sibling tool for next steps. Some details (e.g., comment structure) are omitted, but overall it is complete enough for a read operation with 7 parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the fullDescription truncation behavior and explicitly linking jira_get_attachment to the attachment ID surfaced by this tool, which is not in the schema. This enriches 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for one Jira issue, listing specific fields (summary, description, status, assignee, sprint, transitions, comments, attachments). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning jira_get_attachment for attachment contents, and implicitly from jira_search (multiple issues) and jira_mutate (updates).

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 explicit when-to-use and an alternative: 'To view an attachment's contents... call jira_get_attachment'. It does not cover when to use this vs. jira_search for listing issues, but the alternative guidance is clear and valuable.

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