jira_get_comments

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if pagination applies, or any rate limits. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, leaving the agent without expectations for the response format.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter and an output schema), the description is barely adequate. However, it lacks information about pagination, ordering, or the number of comments returned. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more helpful by noting that all comments are returned without filters.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'issue_key.' The description merely repeats the resource target without explaining what the parameter is or how to obtain it. A self-explanatory parameter name partly mitigates this, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's structure.

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 explicitly states 'Gets all comments for a Jira issue,' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (comments for a Jira issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_add_comment, jira_delete_comment, and jira_edit_comment.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., jira_add_comment for creating comments) or any prerequisites like requiring the issue key. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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