Get Component Issues

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying data sources (4 repos and components_status.json), which is valuable beyond the readonly annotation. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the scope and additional data source. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of issue titles), which could be inferred but lacks explicit detail.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter. The description provides helpful examples ('accordion', 'Alert'), adding clarity beyond the schema's description. This marginally improves usefulness.

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 returns open GitHub issues for a component across four specific repositories, using the verb 'Returns' and identifying the resource and scope. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'get_component' or 'list_accessibility_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?

The description implies the tool is for cross-repo component issue queries but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'list_accessibility_issues'. No 'when-not-to-use' or direct comparisons are provided.

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