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 mentions three actions, it doesn't describe what each action returns, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or side effects. 'Search and get' implies read operations but lacks detail about response format or limitations.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by action enumeration.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, error handling, or usage constraints. The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by explaining return values, which it doesn't do.

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 the three action values but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Search and get Jira users' with specific actions listed, providing a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this user management tool from sibling tools like manage_issues or manage_projects, which would require a 5.

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 lists three actions but provides no guidance on when to use each action versus alternatives, nor when to use this tool versus other user-related tools that might exist. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools.

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