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 mentions actions ('list', 'get') but fails to describe key traits: whether 'get' retrieves specific version details, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or how errors are handled. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence. It efficiently lists actions without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it to highlight the primary use cases more clearly, but overall, it avoids waste and is easy to parse.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutation risks (e.g., 'create' action implied in schema but not in description), return values, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with project versions in a system like Jira, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 hinting at actions ('list', 'get'), but it doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'project_key' relates to actions or the format of dates. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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: 'List and get project versions (releases/fixVersions).' It specifies the verb ('list and get') and resource ('project versions'), making the intent understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_projects' or 'manage_issues', which might also handle version-related tasks, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 implied usage by listing actions ('list', 'get'), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'manage_projects' includes version management or when to prefer this over other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the action names alone.

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