get_my_unresolved_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the operation is a read, that results are scoped to unresolved assigned issues, and that output is grouped by status and priority. However, it does not clarify that 'you' means the current authenticated Jira user, what statuses count as unresolved, or that the 'all' wording is bounded by maxResults pagination.

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 compact: one sentence states the core action and result shape, and a second sentence adds a practical use case. No redundant or filler content is present, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters, the description is mostly adequate. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: it does not clarify the default pagination limit despite using 'all,' does not define 'you' in terms of authenticated user, and does not describe the response structure beyond 'organized by status and priority.'

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 two parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Notably, the phrase 'Get all unresolved issues' could slightly mislead because maxResults defaults to 50 and caps at 100, though the schema handles this 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 the action ('get'), the resource ('issues currently assigned to you'), and the filtering condition ('unresolved'), with an explicit organization scheme ('by status and priority'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_my_current_sprint_issues or search_issues_by_user_involvement through its specific scope.

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 clear usage context: 'Perfect for checking your backlog or identifying what needs attention.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use case is specific enough to guide an agent in selecting it over related issue-search siblings.

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