Get issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic read operation. It does not disclose return shape, error behavior for invalid keys, whether expansion is needed for full data, or any rate/access constraints, adding little beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

One sentence with zero wasted words, action and resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness edges toward under-specification — a short clause of usage context would have fit without bloating the description.

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?

For a simple get-by-key tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left without any indication of the response format, error cases, or how this differs from search_issues. These gaps matter most for an AI agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (issueKey, expand, fields), including the example and default field list. The description adds no new parameter meaning — its PROJ-123 example merely duplicates the schema's — so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single Jira issue'), and the addressing mechanism ('by key, e.g. PROJ-123'). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues, though no sibling is named explicitly; the distinction is behavioral rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus search_issues (when you don't have a key and need to find one first) or get_issue_transitions (when you need workflow transitions). The only implication is that a key is required, but there are no explicit usage contexts, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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