jira_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It describes what each resource returns (e.g., 'list projects and their keys') but does not explicitly state that operations are read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or permissions. Adequate for a search tool but not fully transparent.

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 well-organized with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. It is slightly verbose due to the multiple resource types, but every sentence adds value. No wasted words, but could be more terse without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, 8 resource types), the description covers all scenarios thoroughly. It explains relationships between resources (e.g., using boards to get boardId for sprints), provides example queries, and mentions default behavior. No output schema exists, but the description adequately implies return types.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining parameter usage context, defaults, and interdependencies (e.g., mine=true for your queue, boardId required for sprints). This helps the agent invoke parameters correctly.

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 'Discover Jira resources' and provides specific example queries for each resource type (e.g., 'find tickets for...', 'what's in the backlog'). It distinguishes between 8 distinct resource types with unique purposes, making it unmistakably clear what the tool does.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each resource, including cross-references (e.g., 'use this to find the boardId before fetching sprints or board_overview'). It covers common use cases but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jira_mutate or jira_comment, which would have pushed it to 5.

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