Get Component Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the read-only safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the four repositories queried and mentioning the integration with components_status.json, revealing that the result is a blend of GitHub issues and pre-existing known issues.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the main action and clearly lists the repositories and the supplementary data source. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

With one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It provides the essential scope, the four repositories, and the inclusion of known issues, offering sufficient contextual completeness for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The single parameter 'component' is fully documented in the schema with examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only alludes to 'component' generically and does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so it adds minimal additional meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'open GitHub issues for a component' across four named repositories. It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on issues, whereas siblings handle tokens, markup, variants, or component listings, none of which are 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 clearly defines the scope: this tool retrieves open GitHub issues for a specified component from four specific repositories and also incorporates known issues from components_status.json. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear given the focused toolset.

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