jtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the search actions but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the output looks like (e.g., result format, error handling). This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence lists actions efficiently. There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from more structured guidance.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects like pagination, result format, or error conditions, and does not differentiate from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing the actions ('jql', 'quick'), which aligns with the 'action' parameter's description but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Search Jira issues using JQL or quick text search.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Jira issues'), and method ('JQL or quick text search'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' or 'manage_metrics' that might also involve searching or querying.

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 minimal guidance: it lists actions ('jql', 'quick') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'manage_issues' for issue operations), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent with little direction on tool selection.

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