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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. States it adds a comment (write operation), but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, body formatting (HTML/markdown), or visibility of new comments. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with primary purpose. Minor lack of structure could be improved with formatting hints, but overall 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?

Simple tool with 3 params and output schema exists, so return value not needed. But missing details like body format, page_id type, and prerequisites. Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so description adds meaning where it can. Explicitly explains parent_comment_id usage. Implies page_id and body are required but adds no format or constraints beyond schema. Partially compensates but not fully.

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?

Clearly states 'Adds a comment to a Confluence page' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_get_comments' and 'jira_add_comment' by naming Confluence specifically and mentioning reply functionality.

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?

Gives guidance on when to set parent_comment_id (to reply), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'confluence_get_comments' or mention when not to use this tool. Context for usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens with invalid parent_id, or whether the page is published immediately or as a draft. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it lacks detail that could be added without becoming verbose.

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 (4 parameters, 2 required) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required space context (space_key is optional but essential for placement) and does not specify return value or potential errors. The output schema exists but does not excuse description 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the parent_id parameter being optional but provides no meaning for 'title' or 'content' (e.g., format, length limits). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 verb 'creates' and the resource 'Confluence page', and includes the optional parent page feature. It effectively distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like edit_confluence_page, delete, etc. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not mention prerequisites like needing a space key, nor does it warn against using it for editing existing pages. Implied usage is clear, but explicit context for when to choose this tool over siblings is missing.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Deletes' without details on reversibility, cascading effects, or authorization requirements.

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?

While extremely concise (4 words), the description is under-specifying and would benefit from additional context. Conciseness should not come at the cost of adequacy.

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?

The tool is simple but has an output schema; however, the description lacks details on return value or side effects. For a destructive operation without annotations, 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 coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning to the 'page_id' parameter beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not explain the parameter's role or format.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Deletes) and resource (Confluence page), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, edit, or search pages. However, it lacks specificity about the deletion scope or effect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no context on prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or consequences (e.g., permanent deletion).

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it returns an Image. It does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects, permissions, 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, and no unnecessary words. Could be expanded for clarity without losing conciseness.

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 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Lacks details on return format, error handling, and usage examples.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. Does not explain the expected format or constraints for page_id or filename.

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 verb 'Gets', the resource 'image attachment on a Confluence page', and the return type 'as an Image'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_download_attachment and view_confluence_page.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor conditions or prerequisites. Lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'gets all comments', implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description provides the core purpose but lacks contextual details about how the output is structured or how to interpret results.

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?

The sole parameter 'page_id' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer its format or source.

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 verb 'gets' and the resource 'all comments for a Confluence page', making it distinct from sibling tools that add or edit comments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like jira_get_comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding comments with confluence_add_comment, or getting comments from Jira). The description does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. It implies a search operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like return format (though output schema exists), pagination, or any restrictions. It is minimally adequate but lacks explicit 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 extremely concise with only two lines, front-loading the purpose and including a helpful example. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous text.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits key contextual details: what is returned (e.g., list of pages with snippets), how to use CQL effectively, and the default/max limit. For a search tool of moderate complexity, it is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example for 'cql' but does not explain the syntax beyond the example, and 'limit' is not mentioned at all. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with only two parameters.

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 action ('Searches Confluence content using CQL') and provides an example. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_confluence_pages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No contextual cues for when a user should prefer this search over list_confluence_pages or other tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses version auto-increment and Mermaid diagram limitations, but does not mention required permissions, destructiveness, or response characteristics. The information is partially transparent but lacks completeness.

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 front-loaded with a clear first sentence, but then includes a lengthy section on Mermaid diagrams that, while useful, adds verbosity. The structure could be more compact, but the key information is present.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It omits content format details, version handling beyond auto-increment, and any mention of the return value (though an output schema exists). The Mermaid section provides niche context but does not compensate for overall 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only covers version (auto-increment) and provides Mermaid-specific content guidelines. It does not describe the meaning of page_id, title, or the expected format of content (e.g., HTML or Confluence storage format). This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 'Updates a Confluence page,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_create_page and confluence_delete_page, but could be more explicit about which fields are updated.

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 mentions automatic version increment but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like confluence_create_page or confluence_delete_page. It only lightly implies usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses markdown support and user mentioning format, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or response behavior beyond what is implied by 'adds a comment'. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not exhaustive transparency.

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: a single sentence for purpose, followed by parameter descriptions and a usage note. No extraneous information.

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 is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main points: required parameters, markdown support, and user mentions. It could mention that comments are appended to existing ones, but that is implied. Score 4 for being sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes issue_key minimally as 'The ID or key of the issue.' but expands on comment with details about markdown and user tagging format. The description adds value over the schema by explaining the @[accountId] syntax and markdown features.

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 'Adds a comment to a Jira issue.' which is a specific verb-resource combination. The tool name 'jira_add_comment' and the sibling tools 'jira_edit_comment', 'jira_delete_comment', 'jira_get_comments' make the distinction obvious.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this vs alternatives. However, it provides a usage note for mentioning users and recommends calling jira_search_users first. The purpose is clear from the name, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It describes the markdown support for description and user mentioning behavior, but omits details such as validation of project_key or issuetype, authorization requirements, or error scenarios. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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: two paragraphs with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, discussing description format and user mentioning without redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description lacks details on project_key requirements and issuetype options. For a creation tool operational context (e.g., required permissions, error handling) is missing, making completeness average.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description compensates partly by explaining the description field's markdown and user mentioning. However, it does not explain project_key (e.g., format), summary, or acceptable issuetype values (only the default 'Task'). Parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 it creates a new Jira issue. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_transition_issue, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 explicit guidance on mentioning users, including a prerequisite call to jira_search_users and format details. It warns against ambiguous @username usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings for creation-related tasks.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. Only says 'Deletes' implying irreversibility, but lacks details on permissions, error states, or side effects. For a delete operation, more transparency is needed.

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?

Two efficient sentences plus argument list. No redundant information, front-loaded with action.

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?

Adequate for a straightforward delete operation with an output schema (not shown). Lacks confirmation of outcome or error handling details. Could mention that the operation is idempotent or what happens if comment doesn't exist.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: issue_key as the ID or key, and comment_id as the ID from jira_get_comments. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Deletes a comment') and the resource ('from a Jira issue'). It specifies both parameters and distinguishes from siblings like jira_add_comment and jira_edit_comment.

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?

Provides minimal guidance: hints that comment_id comes from jira_get_comments, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. No alternatives mentioned.

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

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

Discloses the core behavior (downloads, saves to temp file, returns path), which is sufficient given no annotations. However, lacks details on side effects like temp file lifetime, required permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, covering the main action and output. However, lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., must have an attachment from an issue) and error conditions.

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?

Only one parameter (attachment_id) with schema description coverage at 0%. Description adds 'by ID' but does not clarify the format or source of the ID. More detail would help usage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Downloads', the resource 'Jira attachment', and adds detail about saving to a temp file and returning the file path. Differentiates from sibling tools as the only attachment download tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to avoid downloading large attachments or how to obtain the attachment ID. Lack of context for usage decisions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it edits a comment but does not detail behavior such as whether it replaces the entire content, required permissions, or side effects. Output schema exists but doesn't mitigate the lack of behavioral description.

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?

Well-structured with summary, argument list, and usage notes. Information is front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but all content is valuable and not repetitive.

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 complexity (3 params, no enums) and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage nuances adequately. Missing only behavioral details like permissions and idempotency.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but description compensates by explaining each parameter: issue_key, comment_id (source from jira_get_comments), comment (markdown content and formatting). Additionally provides detailed user mentioning syntax.

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?

Clearly states 'Edits an existing comment on a Jira issue.' Verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools jira_add_comment and jira_delete_comment by specifying edit action.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on mentioning users, including prerequisite call to jira_search_users and preference for @[accountId]. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool selection guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if pagination applies, or any rate limits. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, leaving the agent without expectations for the response format.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter and an output schema), the description is barely adequate. However, it lacks information about pagination, ordering, or the number of comments returned. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more helpful by noting that all comments are returned without filters.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'issue_key.' The description merely repeats the resource target without explaining what the parameter is or how to obtain it. A self-explanatory parameter name partly mitigates this, but the description adds no value beyond the schema's structure.

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 explicitly states 'Gets all comments for a Jira issue,' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (comments for a Jira issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_add_comment, jira_delete_comment, and jira_edit_comment.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., jira_add_comment for creating comments) or any prerequisites like requiring the issue key. The agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what constitutes a transition, or if results depend on user permissions. Minimal transparency beyond the implied non-destructive nature.

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?

A single sentence is concise, but it may be too brief. While it contains essential information, it lacks structure or elaboration that could be helpful without being verbose. Scores a 3 as adequately concise but not optimally informative.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description is sufficient for basic understanding but omits typical use context, like suggesting it be used before jira_transition_issue. Additional guidance would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool's description does not add any meaning for the only parameter 'issue_key' beyond what is already known from its name. No details on format or constraints.

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 'Gets available transitions for a Jira issue' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue (which performs transitions) and jira_update_issue (which modifies fields). However, it could be more precise by specifying that transitions refer to status changes.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as calling it before jira_transition_issue to get possible transitions. There is also no mention of prerequisites like issue existence or permissions.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only operation (listing fields) and explains the output's purpose, which adds value. However, it does not disclose details like required authentication, data volume, or potential pagination, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the core action, and the second provides immediate usage context. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description sufficiently explains why and how the tool is used, linking it to the workflow of other Jira tools. It is complete for the given complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining that the output consists of field IDs for use in other tools, which is valuable context beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Lists all available Jira fields (standard and custom).' It specifies a concrete verb+resource and distinguishes itself by mentioning how the output is used by sibling tools like read_jira_issue, list_jira_issues, and jira_update_issue.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover field IDs you can pass as additional_fields to...' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching by name or email but does not disclose traits like case sensitivity, pagination, or whether it returns inactive users. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.

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 no unnecessary words. It includes a clear one-line purpose and a parameter list, front-loading the key information.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the search behavior. It lacks details like scope (e.g., all users or project-specific), but for a basic search, it is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters: query (name, email, username fragment) and max_results (maximum number). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic schema types.

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 'Searches for Jira users by name or email.' It is a specific verb+resource+method, and the tool is distinct from siblings which focus on other Jira/Confluence entities.

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 a clear context for use (search for users), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, among siblings, there is no other user search tool, so the need for exclusion is minimal.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, permission requirements, side effects, or idempotency. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and provide immediate guidance, wasting no words.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-param tool with an output schema; describes the core action and a prerequisite, but is silent on error conditions, return values, and permission context.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters (issue_key, transition_id) beyond their names, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 transitions a Jira issue to a new status via a transition ID, distinguishing it from siblings like jira_get_transitions (which retrieves IDs) and jira_update_issue (which modifies fields).

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?

Explicitly advises using jira_get_transitions to find transition IDs, providing clear prerequisite context, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance vs other update tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that rich text fields undergo ADF conversion, and that markdown is supported for description and rich text. It does not disclose idempotency or error handling, but covers core behavior well.

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?

Well-structured with sections for each parameter type and usage tips. Some repetition (e.g., mentioning markdown twice) but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall 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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers all parameters, provides examples, and explains conversion behavior. It is thorough and leaves no major 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains each parameter: issue_key format, summary, description with markdown support, additional_fields with example, rich_text_fields with ADF conversion note. Provides concrete examples for additional_fields and rich_text_fields.

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 it updates fields on a Jira issue, a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_create_issue and jira_transition_issue by focusing on field updates.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use additional_fields vs rich_text_fields, and instructs to use jira_list_fields to discover field IDs. Mentions user mentioning prerequisite (jira_search_users). However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for transitions or other operations.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states it lists pages but does not mention pagination, ordering, default limit behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it is too minimal and lacks necessary detail.

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 two parameters with no schema descriptions and a read operation, the description should clarify how to specify the space and the effect of the limit. It does not, leaving 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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field titles.

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 verb 'Lists' and the resource 'Confluence pages in a space', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or comment retrieval.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for listing all pages in a space, but does not contrast with search or other listing mechanisms.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses default returned fields, pagination via next_page_token, and ability to add extra fields. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling for invalid JQL, or that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'List').

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 relatively concise with a clear structure: first sentence states purpose, followed by a note on default fields, then an Args section documenting each parameter. It could be slightly more compact, but it's well-organized.

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 (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers key aspects: default fields, pagination, and additional field selection. It lacks information on error handling or constraints, but the presence of an output schema partially compensates.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all four parameters: jql is a JQL query, next_page_token for pagination, max_results limits results, and additional_fields lists extra fields with an example array. This goes beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 tool name 'list_jira_issues' clearly indicates listing Jira issues, and the description states 'Lists Jira issues using JQL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_jira_issue' which fetches a single issue, and 'jira_search_users' which searches users.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_jira_issue for single issue, or Confluence search). It does not mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool gets details and explains the default behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear structure: a main sentence, then a note on default behavior, followed by parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the parameter listing could be slightly streamlined.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the default compact set and how to expand it. However, it misses potential error cases and access prerequisites, which would make it more complete.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: issue_key is exemplified as 'PROJ-123', and additional_fields lists example field names like 'components' and 'fixVersions'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 'Gets details of a specific Jira issue.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_jira_issues (which lists multiple issues) and jira_update_issue (which modifies an issue).

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 explains the default compact response and when to use additional_fields to request more fields, providing clear guidance on usage. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the implicit context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'gets content' without disclosing access requirements, rate limits, or what 'content' includes (body, children, attachments?). The output schema exists but is not referenced; behavior remains opaque.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. Could front-load more details about required input or output type without adding significant length.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should explain what the output contains and how to interpret results. It fails to do so, making the tool incomplete for autonomous use.

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?

The single parameter page_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on its meaning or how to obtain a valid ID. This leaves the agent guessing, requiring external knowledge.

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 states 'gets the content of a Confluence page,' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (Confluence page content). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_confluence_pages (which lists pages) or edit_confluence_page (which modifies). Lacks minor details like whether content includes metadata or attachments, but overall clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search or list tools for finding a page first). An agent is not told that page_id must be obtained beforehand or that this tool is for viewing full content, not for searching.

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