list_sub_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context: it doesn't say whether the tree is returned nested or flattened, how deep the default traversal goes, or what 'progress' means in the payload. For a read tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the result shape and does not.

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?

It is short and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: a single ambiguous fragment that is not front-loaded around an action or a return contract. Length is fine; content density is the problem.

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?

Three parameters, one required, no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint — the description should therefore explain the traversal depth behavior, the workspace scoping, and at least the shape of the tree returned. It supplies none of these, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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 only 67% and the covered descriptions are terse ('Levels', 'Parent issue id'), while workspace has no description anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about what depth controls, its default of 5, or whether workspace is required for cross-workspace lookups, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 phrase 'Sub-issue tree of an issue with progress' identifies the resource (sub-issues of a parent issue) and hints at a hierarchical result plus a progress element, which distinguishes it somewhat from the flat sibling list_issues. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, and 'with progress' is ambiguous — it could describe the issue's progress field or an aggregate rolled up over the tree.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to pick this over list_issues or search_issues when you want a hierarchy, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the identifier must be a parent issue) are stated. The agent must infer the use case purely from the name.

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