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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results span all leave calendars and that a single-day query returns 'who is out', but says nothing about result ordering, volume, or grouping behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the two usage patterns. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description gives enough to call the tool correctly (required date range, optional person, implied grouping). It is slightly thin on what the returned events look like, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value beyond it: it explains that 'person' narrows to one individual's events and that setting start_date=end_date produces a single-day 'who is out' view, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Get time-off events') plus scope ('across all leave calendars'), which separates it from the sibling confluence_list_calendars. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives two concrete calling patterns: pass 'person' for an individual, or equal start/end dates to see who is out on one day. That is clear context for invocation, though it notes no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens with no person filter).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lowered. The description adds the scoping constraint but no return format, pagination, or result-limit behavior beyond what annotations provide, making it minimally adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional narrowing second. 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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description says nothing about what a listing returns or how results are bounded, leaving a gap an agent would want covered.

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 both parameters (search, filter_type) are already documented with clear semantics and a type example ('leaves'). The description only restates them at a high level, so the baseline of 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?

Clear specific verb plus resource: 'List Confluence calendars'. It scopes the operation and hints at filtering. It does not explicitly differentiate from the near siblings confluence_get_time_off or confluence_sprint_capacity, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'Optionally narrowed by type or a name/space search' implies when the filters are appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail not in the schema: time-off is factored in automatically (there is no time-off parameter). It still says nothing about how capacity is derived or what the result contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety is covered by annotations, so the tool is callable as-is. However, with no output schema, the description could usefully state what the capacity result looks like, and it omits any guidance on the calendar/time-off dependency, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (including date-format options and the working_days_per_week default) are already documented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calculate sprint capacity'), so the agent knows exactly what computation this performs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related siblings like confluence_list_calendars and confluence_get_time_off, which supply the underlying data.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that calendar/time-off data must be accessible). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description's one added behavioral fact — that a compact field set is returned by default and ``*all`` widens it — largely restates the schema text for ``fields``, so it contributes little beyond structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed immediately by the return-shape note. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to invoke it; pagination is documented via start_at/max_results/next_start_at in the schema. Minor gap: no hint about ordering or total counts, but those are secondary here.

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 compact-default and '*all' semantics are already documented in the ``fields`` property, including the large-response warning. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

"Get backlog issues for a board" states a specific verb (Get) plus resource (backlog issues) and scope (per board), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from jira_get_sprint or jira_get_board. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the boundary conditions that separate backlog from sprint queries.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as jira_get_sprint or issue search tools, even though the sibling list contains several plausible confusables. The only usage hint is about the ``fields`` parameter, not about when to select this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note about output shape, pagination, or what 'configuration' entails (columns, statuses, mappings).

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key resource term is front-loaded. It could carry one more clause of useful context without bloat, but there is zero waste.

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?

With no output schema, an agent still lacks any sense of what the returned configuration looks like, but the read-only annotations and complete param schema cover the call mechanics. Adequate but thin for a config-retrieval tool.

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% with board_id documented as 'Board ID', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (board column/status configuration), which is more precise than the generic name. It is distinguishable from jira_get_board, though it never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling. Clear but without sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus jira_get_board or jira_list_fields. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'board column/status configuration'. No prerequisites or exclusions are offered.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/open-world nature is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: epics need an instance-specific Epic Name custom field, and custom_fields takes typed values like {"value": "MyTeam"}. It omits any statement about side effects (notifications, watchers) or what is returned, so it goes beyond annotations but not far.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two highest-value edge cases, using inline code for exact syntax. Nothing is padded, though the Epic paragraph and custom_fields example are somewhat tersely juxtaposed without a clear connective.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what a successful create returns (presumably an issue key/ID), which an agent needs to chain follow-up calls like jira_update_issue. Parameter coverage is otherwise solid, so the gap is narrow but real for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining non-obvious semantics the schema cannot: the special issue_type="Epic" branch requires an Epic Name custom field, and custom_fields entries can be scalars or nested {"value": ...} objects. It also points at jira_list_fields for discovering IDs, which is real added meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a Jira issue") and scopes it to standard and custom fields, which distinguishes it naturally from jira_update_issue and jira_create_version. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or clarifying boundaries, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 Epic note is really the only usage guidance: use issue_type="Epic" and set the Epic Name via custom_fields. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites (project access, required fields per issue type), and no sizing or rate-limit context; usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-dependency profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of required permissions, whether the link type must pre-exist, or what happens on duplicate links.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is neither bloated nor padded, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description is inadequate: it omits link-type availability, directionality implications, error behavior, and the optional comment's effect, all of which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 all four parameters (including link_type semantics and inward/outward direction) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('link between two Jira issues'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_delete_link. However, it offers no further differentiation or scope detail beyond the single clause.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as jira_delete_link, nor any prerequisite context (e.g., that the link types must already exist in the instance). The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-deterministic nature is covered. The description adds deployment-scope context (REST API v2, Server/DC and Cloud support) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about permission requirements or the uniqueness/duplicate-name error case that a version-creation call commonly hits.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the compatibility note trailing in parentheses; there is 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?

With a fully documented 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description need not explain return values, so the structured fields carry most of the load. However, for a mutation tool it omits the practical context an agent needs (auth/permission expectations, duplicate-name failure mode), leaving it merely adequate.

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% with all 7 parameters (name, project_key, archived, released, start_date, release_date, description) documented inline, including date formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new version in a Jira project'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling jira_update_version or jira_get_project_versions, relying on the verb alone to separate them.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project admin permission needed to create versions), and no routing to alternatives such as jira_update_version or jira_get_project_versions. The parenthetical about REST API v2 is compatibility context, not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing beyond the name at all — no note that deletion is permanent/irreversible, no permission requirements, no side effects on issues or comments referencing the attachment.

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 five-word sentence with zero padding — front-loaded verb and resource. It is efficient, though the terseness verges on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It still lacks any irreversibility or permission context that an agent authorizing a delete would want before acting.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ("Numeric attachment ID to delete"), the schema fully documents the input, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain the attachment ID) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a Jira attachment"), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling attachment tools like jira_download_attachment and jira_upload_attachment. It stops short of naming a sibling or scope explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives (e.g., why not download or re-upload instead of deleting). The agent must infer all routing decisions 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those structured fields—it does not state permanence, required permissions, or side effects of removing a link.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the identifier in the most compact form possible.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with fully covered annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits how to obtain a link ID and does not clarify that the deletion is irreversible, leaving small but real gaps for an agent.

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% and the single link_id parameter is fully documented with a numeric pattern. The phrase 'by its ID' in the description merely restates what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Jira issue link') with the lookup key ('by its ID'), making the operation immediately clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling jira_create_link, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_link or jira_delete_attachment, nor does it state prerequisites. Usage is left entirely to inference from the verb.

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

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing overwrite behavior (never overwrites; numeric suffix added) and the returned absolute path, which the readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true flags alone would not reveal. It could still note required permissions or failure modes, but the mutation semantics are well covered.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and follows with the two behavioral caveats that matter. Every sentence carries information; sizing is appropriate with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (final absolute path) and destination behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it. Minor gap: no hint on where content_url comes from or error conditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that save_path is a bare file name and supplies the default download directory, adding minor value beyond the schema but no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download a Jira attachment') plus the destination directory, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like jira_get_attachments (list) or jira_upload_attachment (reverse direction), leaving a small sibling-overlap risk.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear purpose and the save_path caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from jira_get_attachments. Nothing tells the agent how to obtain content_url or when this is preferred over the list tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile, so the description is not the main carrier here. But it adds nothing further — no note on whether results are paginated, what auth/scope is required, or what attachment metadata is returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any hint of the return shape (attachment id/name/size needed to chain into download) and pagination behavior, which an agent would need since there is no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single issue_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including a pattern and example. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List attachments') scoped to a Jira issue, which functionally separates it from the download/delete/upload attachment siblings. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly delineates the boundary, so it falls short of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as jira_download_attachment (to fetch content) or jira_delete_attachment. Usage is only inferable from the bare purpose statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond them - no statement of what 'details' are returned, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open what fields the board details contain and how it relates to sibling board tools.

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% for the single board_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the ID, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Jira agile board), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like jira_board_config or jira_backlog, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no indication of when to fetch a board versus using jira_board_config or jira_backlog, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful platform context (REST API v2, Server/DC and Cloud) but says nothing about pagination or ordering for a 'list all' operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical adds real platform/API-version value rather than restating the name.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is undisclosed pagination/return behavior for a 'list all' call.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents project_key including its pattern and example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (versions for a Jira project), which is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from the create/update version siblings by name and verb, but the description does not explicitly position itself against them.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is given. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'List', with no exclusions or guidance on choosing this over other version-related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what 'details' are returned, whether the sprint must be active/closed, or any auth requirements, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, yet 'details of a specific sprint' says nothing about fields returned (name, state, dates, board). For a retrieval tool with no output schema, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents sprint_id (integer, minimum 1). The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup hints beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific sprint'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from sprint-adjacent siblings like jira_move_to_sprint or confluence_sprint_capacity, but those are clearly different operations, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing board/sprint IDs from jira_get_board or jira_backlog), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on whether all fields or only visible/creatable fields are returned, whether the list is paginated, or whether custom fields behave differently.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema, fully documented schema, annotations covering safety), so the thin description is minimally viable. It still leaves the return shape and result volume unaddressed, which an agent enumerating fields would want to know.

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 already documents both parameters fully ("Filter fields by name", "Only return custom fields"). The description's "optionally filtered" adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List Jira fields"), which is unambiguous on its own. However it offers no differentiation from siblings — no other sibling lists fields, so no disambiguation is needed, but neither is any comparison or scope boundary drawn.

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?

"Optionally filtered" hints that filtering exists but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and, say, jira_list_projects or any other enumeration tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — results are permission-scoped ('accessible') and unfiltered ('all') — but says nothing about pagination or the shape/size of the result, which matters for a listing tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and resource lead. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but on the conciseness axis it is clean and wastes nothing.

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 zero-parameter read, annotations carry the safety profile, but with no output schema the description is the only place a caller could learn what comes back (list of project keys/names, pagination, result limits) and it omits that. Adequate but with a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call needs no input.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Jira projects') with a scope qualifier ('all accessible'), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not name or contrast any sibling tool, but no sibling duplicates this function, so differentiation is not really at stake.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives (e.g. jira_get_project_versions or jira_list_fields), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, which is the definition of minimal guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: no mention of permission requirements, whether the move is atomic across multiple issue_keys, what happens to already-assigned issues, or error behavior on partial failures.

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 short sentence with zero padding, which is efficient and front-loaded. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a mutation tool, so it reads more as minimal than as well-calibrated brevity.

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 mutating bulk operation with no output schema and no explicit guidance on sprint state eligibility or failure semantics, the definition leaves meaningful gaps. The annotations cover the read/write nature but not the operational constraints an agent needs before invoking it.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents sprint_id and issue_keys (including the example format). The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('issues into a sprint'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from related siblings such as jira_get_sprint or jira_backlog, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_backlog, nor any prerequisites (e.g. sprint must be active/future, issue must be on the same board). Usage context is entirely absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no mention of match semantics, whether results are paginated by default, or what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness.

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 read-only lookup with fully described parameters and annotation-covered safety, this is adequate to invoke the tool. It still leaves gaps about result shape and paging workflow, and notably the schema's start_at description references a next_start_at parameter that does not exist — context the description could have clarified.

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 query, start_at and max_results are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior hints beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search for Jira users"), so an agent immediately knows this queries the user directory rather than issues or projects. However, it offers no scope detail (e.g., matching semantics, whether it searches the whole site or a project) and does nothing to differentiate itself from the surrounding Jira siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this is the tool for resolving a user to an accountId before operations like jira_create_issue or jira_move_to_sprint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it provides no elaboration that might aid invocation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain whether the update merges or replaces fields, what happens to unmentioned fields, or any required permissions, leaving significant gaps.

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 already documents all parameters including the distinction between standard and custom fields. The description's mention of 'standard and custom fields' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Jira issue'), and adds that both standard and custom fields can be updated. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like jira_create_issue, but the resource is clear enough to identify the tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_create_issue or other update tools. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no context about typical scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds platform/deployment context (REST API v2, Server/DC and Cloud) but says nothing about partial-update semantics, permissions required, or what happens to omitted fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource and environment support are all packed into one clause with zero waste.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the bare essentials and annotations carry the safety profile. However it omits partial-update behavior and any hint about the returned version object, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 every parameter including version_id, name, archived, released and the date fields is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (Jira version), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from jira_create_version and jira_get_project_versions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as jira_create_version or jira_get_project_versions. The agent is left to infer that this applies only to versions that already exist.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external nature is partly covered. The description adds nothing further: no attachment size limits, no overwrite behavior for duplicate filenames, no permission requirements, and no indication of what the call returns (e.g. an attachment id). For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the verb+resource appear immediately.

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?

With no output schema and complete parameter documentation, the definition is minimally viable for calling the tool. It is incomplete on the behavioral side, though: return value, size limits, and duplicate-handling are absent, leaving the agent to guess at operational constraints.

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 issue_key, file_path, and the filename override are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional semantics such as format constraints or filename behavior, 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 (upload) and resource (file as attachment to a Jira issue), which cleanly distinguishes it from the read/delete attachment siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or scope conditions, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the issue must exist, permissions needed), and no reference to the sibling tools jira_get_attachments, jira_download_attachment, or jira_delete_attachment. The agent must infer all routing 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.