my_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though per_page parameter hints at pagination), or the structure of the returned data. The description does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it is insufficiently transparent.

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 concise and uses a clear Args format. No extraneous information is present. It could be slightly more compact by integrating examples into the parameter descriptions, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but not shown), the description covers the core functionality adequately. However, it lacks some contextual details such as the return format (list of issues), authentication context, and explicit note that results are paginated. An output schema exists but is not described, so the agent would still need to infer return structure from other cues.

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 adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter: state filter with examples, project_path as optional with format hint, and per_page with a max value. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could mention defaults more explicitly.

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 it lists issues assigned to the current authenticated user, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues which likely list all issues. The verb 'list' and resource 'issues assigned to current user' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for getting issues assigned to the authenticated user across projects or a specific project). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing issues not assigned to the user.

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