jtk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists available actions, it doesn't describe permissions required, rate limits, whether actions are read-only or mutating, error conditions, or response formats. For a tool with 13 parameters and multiple action types, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the purpose followed by an action list. Every element serves a purpose, though the action list could be more elegantly integrated. It's appropriately sized for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, multiple action types), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how different actions relate to each other. For a multi-function tool with both read and write operations, much more context is needed.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing action names, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, dependencies, or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema 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 the tool manages Jira agile boards and sprints, specifying the exact actions available. It provides a specific verb ('manage') and resources ('boards and sprints'), but doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' or 'manage_projects' that might also interact with Jira boards indirectly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists available actions but offers no context about prerequisites, when certain actions are appropriate, or how this tool differs from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' that might also handle sprint-related operations.

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