query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the return shape ('Returns ids, titles, status and labels, not bodies'). However, it is silent on pagination behavior tied to 'first', result ordering, and any limits or auth requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, immediately followed by usage examples and the return contract. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly which fields are returned and that bodies are excluded. The main remaining gap is the undocumented 'first' pagination parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job on 'query' by showing example syntax ('status:open label:area/api', 'sort:edit'), but says nothing about 'first', which is undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List entries matching a git-bug query') and reinforces the concept with two concrete example queries. It is clearly a search/list operation, which implicitly separates it from single-entry siblings like 'get', but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 two example queries imply how to use the tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick it over 'get' (single entry) or the mutation siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance are given.

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