list_issues_by_user_role

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 discloses that date filtering is available, but it does not explain required user identification (username vs. accountId), pagination behavior, or what happens if neither user identifier is provided. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded: the primary function is stated in the first sentence, with the date filtering feature in the second. Both sentences earn their place, though the date filtering phrase is a bit generic and could be more specific to the startDate/endDate parameters.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively. It does not explain how to identify the target user, whether projectKeys is required for meaningful results, or what the response format looks like. It also doesn't clarify how this differs from similar issue-search sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level note about role categories and date filtering, but does not provide meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema, such as the relationship between username and accountId or project key filtering behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List issues') and a specific filter criteria (user role: assignee, reporter, or creator). It clearly conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_issues_by_user_involvement, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation mark.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues_by_user_involvement or get_my_unresolved_issues. It mentions date filtering, but does not provide context for selecting this tool, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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