list_issue_children

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether 'children' means direct children only, whether it includes grandchildren, how errors are handled, or whether any side effects occur. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without adding behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the core operation and includes a concrete identifier example. There is no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining clear.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'children' means (e.g., sub-issues, linked issues), explain the expand parameter, or provide any usage context. Given the lack of annotations, this minimal description is inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has two parameters with zero description coverage. The description mentions 'identificador' which maps to parent_identifier, but gives no information about the 'expand' parameter or its default value. This leaves half the parameter space unexplained, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('Lista filhos') and the target resource ('issue/épico') by identifier, with an example ('CKTPC-838'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issues and retrieve_issue by focusing on children, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issues or retrieve_issue. It only describes the function without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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