get_user_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes that the tool returns assigned issues, but does not explain pagination behavior (limit, cursor), ordering, or the scope (all projects vs specific). Minimal disclosure beyond the core function.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a key usage hint. No redundant words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks important context such as pagination details, scope (all projects?), and sorting. For a tool that fetches a list of issues, the description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand its behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter semantics. It adds meaning to user_id by explaining the omit behavior, but provides no explanation for limit and cursor parameters, leaving their roles unclear.

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 retrieves assigned issues for a user, specifying that omitting user_id gives the authenticated user's issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue) or list_project_issues (project-scoped).

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 gives a specific usage hint (omit user_id for own issues) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_issues or list_project_issues. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information.

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