jira_get_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields (summary, status, type, assignee, description) but does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Description is one sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word adds value: verb, resource, key format, returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema exists but not shown), the description is largely complete. It lists returned fields. However, it omits details like whether the issue key is case-sensitive or if authentication is required, but for a basic get tool, this is sufficient.

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 single parameter 'issue_key' is explained with an example (e.g., PROJ-123), clarifying the expected format. Schema had 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by adding meaningful context beyond the parameter name and type.

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 clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'Jira issue', and specifies the expected key format (e.g., PROJ-123). It also lists the returned fields: summary, status, type, assignee, description. No siblings exist to differentiate, so purpose is crystal clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, with no siblings listed and the tool being a straightforward retrieval, the description adequately implies its use. Lacks prerequisites or context about when not to use.

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