get_my_work

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's real contribution is the semantic constraint that 'login' is a compatibility assertion that cannot override the authenticated identity. That is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 tightly written sentences with the identity scoping front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly a consequence of the under-specified parameters rather than deliberate economy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the load; it clarifies identity semantics well but leaves the required owner/number parameters and the result contents unexplained. Adequate for identity scoping, incomplete for invocation.

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 six parameters exist, yet the description only addresses one of them ('login'). The required owner/number and the pagination/filter parameters (first, includeDone, includeArchived) get no explanation in either the schema or the description, which is a substantial gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('work assigned to the authenticated GitHub identity'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_unassigned_work, get_review_queue, and get_blockers. 'Work' remains slightly abstract (items? issues? PRs?), so it stops short of 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 implies the usage context (fetching the caller's own assigned work) but never states when to choose this over get_unassigned_work or get_blockers, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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