jira_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'retrieves' indicates a read operation, and 'comprehensive details' gives some expectation of output, but the description does not mention authorization requirements, error behavior for nonexistent issues, or what specific fields are included. The API doc link offers additional context, but the description itself lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and includes a concrete example. The official API doc link is a useful additional resource without cluttering the text. No wasted words.

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 (one required parameter), and the description provides the essential purpose and an example. The API doc link supplements missing details about return values and error cases. For a straightforward retrieval tool, this is near-complete, though lacking explicit handling of invalid IDs or permissions.

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. The description repeats the parameter semantics already present in the schema ('ID or Key' and examples) without adding additional meaning, such as format constraints or behavior with different input types. The value is equivalent to the schema's own description, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 that the tool retrieves a specific Jira issue or asset by ID or Key, with examples ('PROJ-123' or '10001'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_search_jql, which searches across issues, and jira_create_issue, which creates.

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 the appropriate use case (when you have an issue ID or Key and need comprehensive details) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. It does not mention when to use jira_search_jql instead, or state that this tool is for single-issue retrieval. The API doc link partially compensates, but explicit exclusion guidance is missing.

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