get_issue_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded' and 'hierarchy', which provide useful context about the graph's scope, but it does not explain traversal behavior, limits, or return format beyond what annotations/schema offer.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings. The output schema covers return values, but overall context could be richer.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('relation and hierarchy graph'), and scopes it to 'around one issue' and 'bounded', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and get_planning_graph (planning graph). This is a clear statement of purpose.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'around one issue', indicating the tool is for exploring a single issue's relations and hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., get_planning_graph) or provide exclusions.

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