jira_get_comments

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only and returns only the most recent comments up to the limit. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity, but it could further mention ordering direction or error behavior. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and performs adequately.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Clearly communicates the purpose and a key behavioral detail. Extremely concise.

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 tool with output schema exists, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention the ordering or pagination but is mostly complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema: it mentions 'most recent' which matches the schema's 'newest kept' for limit. No additional meaning is added for the key parameter.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'comments on a Jira issue', and distinguishes it from sibling Jira tools by specifying the action on comments. It is specific and 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?

The description implies usage when needing comments for an issue but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use jira_get_issue instead). No when-not-to-use or alternative naming is given.

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