Find Issues

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already informs the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the scoping constraint of queue and created date (even if incomplete), which is a slight behavioral cue. However, it offers no details on pagination behavior, context window implications, or rate limits, so it earns a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary repetition of the schema. However, the final qualifier 'by queue and/or created date' is not only inaccurate but also occupies space without adding real value for a tool with much broader query capabilities, preventing a 5.

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 a rich schema and output schema, the tool description is too skeletal. It fails to provide an overview of the query language's power, does not mention the optional fields parameter for context control, and offers no guidance on relationship with sibling tools like filter_find_issues. The agent must rely almost entirely on the schema, making the description inadequate for a tool with this 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema documents most parameters extensively, including the rich query language. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the vague 'by queue and/or created date', which is inaccurate as it implies only those filters are possible. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, but the description does not add meaningful semantic value.

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 finds Yandex Tracker issues, which is a specific verb+resource. However, the qualifier 'by queue and/or created date' is incomplete and somewhat misleading because the query parameter supports many other fields (assignee, status, author, etc.), as evidenced by the query examples in the schema. This prevents 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like filter_find_issues or issues_count. It does not mention conditions for selecting this tool or any exclusions. The one-sentence description lacks any usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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