Get group issues

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it discloses default subgroup inclusion, the wrapper-plus-Issue-models return shape, and specific error conditions for missing or invalid parameters.

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 front-loaded and structured into Args, Returns, and Raises sections with little wasted text. The **kwargs notation and trailing ellipsis slightly reduce precision but do not make it bloated.

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?

For a 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the core purpose, some filters, return wrapper, and error cases. However, it leaves pagination behavior and many schema parameters unexplained, so it is only minimally complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It identifies group_id as required and lists some optional filters, but several mentioned filters such as assignee_username, search, and order_by do not appear in the schema, while many schema parameters such as page, per_page, max_pages, title, description, issue_iid, project_id, and api_parameters are omitted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of issues for a group' and clarifies the default subgroup scope. It is distinguishable from a project-issues tool, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as gitlab_get_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 group scope and default subgroup inclusion imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative issue-listing tools. The usage is inferable but not actively routed.

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