Get Issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are paginated, which is useful, and indicates a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention default behavior when no project is specified, authorization requirements, or response format. It adds some value but lacks depth.

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 conveys the core purpose and pagination behavior without extraneous wording. Every word 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?

Given the moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but serviceable. It mentions pagination and scope, but does not clarify default behavior, sort order, or what fields each returned issue contains. The schema covers parameters, but the lack of output schema means the description could add more value by describing return expectations.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already provides full semantics for all 7 parameters. The description adds only a high-level scope hint ('project or globally') that maps to the optional project_id parameter, but no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('issues') and scope ('for a project or globally'), plus a pagination hint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_issue' (singular) and 'get_todos' by indicating a list-oriented, potentially global query.

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 phrase 'for a project or globally' implies when to use the tool (e.g., when wanting all issues across projects vs. a single project), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_issue' for a single issue. Usage context is implied rather than directly prescribed.

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