Get issue types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'all' signals no implicit filtering, but the description does not mention permissions, pagination, or return format. For a simple no-arg tool this is acceptable but not richly 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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by helpful parenthetical examples. There is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers what, scope, and examples. It could explicitly mention the output shape, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is moot. The description appropriately specifies that all issue types are returned, aligning with the absence of filters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all issue types ... in the Jira instance.' The examples (Story, Task, Bug, Epic) clarify what counts as an issue type, and the instance-level scoping distinguishes it from the project-scoped sibling get_project_issue_types.

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 phrase 'in the Jira instance' clearly signals this is for instance-wide issue types rather than project-specific ones, giving adequate context for selection. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but the scope is clear enough for most agents.

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