Search Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations. No additional value beyond annotations.

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?

One short sentence with no fluff, achieving efficiency. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be slightly more informative without sacrificing 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain search behavior, pagination, state filtering, or return format. While annotations cover read-only safety, the description misses key contextual details.

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 only mentions 'title and description matching,' which loosely relates to the 'in' parameter. It fails to explain other parameters (project_id, search, page, per_page, state) that are not self-explanatory from the schema alone.

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 (search), resource (issues), scope (in a project), and method (title and description matching). It distinguishes from siblings like list_issues and find_security_related_issues. However, it does not explicitly mention the ability to filter by title, description, or both via the 'in' parameter, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 compared to alternatives like list_issues (which lists issues without search) or find_security_related_issues (specialized search). The description only states functionality, not usage context.

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