read_jira_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets details and explains the default behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with a clear structure: a main sentence, then a note on default behavior, followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the parameter listing could be slightly streamlined.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the default compact set and how to expand it. However, it misses potential error cases and access prerequisites, which would make it more complete.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: issue_key is exemplified as 'PROJ-123', and additional_fields lists example field names like 'components' and 'fixVersions'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Gets details of a specific Jira issue.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_jira_issues (which lists multiple issues) and jira_update_issue (which modifies an issue).

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 explains the default compact response and when to use additional_fields to request more fields, providing clear guidance on usage. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the implicit context is sufficient.

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