jtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the actions and their outputs but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to outline the purpose and detail the actions. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the action details more explicitly, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity of metrics retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and actions but lacks details on return formats, error cases, or behavioral traits. This is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full operational clarity, especially without annotations to fill in 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'action' parameter options ('get_dates' for raw date info and 'get_metrics' for computed metrics), which complements the schema. However, it does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already covers, such as format details for 'issue_key'.

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's purpose: 'Get issue lifecycle metrics for dashboards and visualizations.' It specifies the resource (issue lifecycle metrics) and the intended use (dashboards and visualizations), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' or 'manage_search', which might also involve issue data, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 by detailing two actions ('get_dates' and 'get_metrics') and their outputs, suggesting when to use each action based on the type of metrics needed. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., 'manage_issues' for general issue data) or any prerequisites, relying on implied context from the action descriptions.

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