search_issues_scroll

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

Describes the scrolling mechanism, return of next_scroll_id, and requirement to pass same query. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs, but core behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded with key info, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose and action steps.

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 scroll mechanism and multiple parameters, description covers main aspects. Slightly incomplete on output format (no output schema, but description doesn't mention returned fields), but sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, description compensates by explaining query (YQL), per_scroll (max 1000), scroll_type (sorted|unsorted), scroll_ttl_millis, and usage pattern for first vs subsequent calls. Adds value beyond schema names.

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 tool is for scrollable issue search for very large result sets (10k+ matches), distinguishing it from non-scrollable search tools like 'search_issues'.

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 step-by-step usage: first call with query, subsequent calls with scroll_id and same query. Also warns against incorrect search body. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for smaller result sets) or compare to siblings.

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