search_issues_by_user_involvement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal what the returned issue data looks like, whether pagination behavior is governed by startAt/maxResults, how 'any' behaves across roles, or whether one of username/accountId must be supplied. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no output schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core search operation and user-involvement scoping. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs more context to invoke this tool correctly. The description does not clarify output format, identifier requirements, the semantics of 'all', or pagination. While the schema covers parameter definitions, the overall tool context remains under-specified for reliable autonomous use.

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 structured schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the searchType role options in prose, but adds no meaning beyond the enum. It also does not clarify the relationship between username and accountId, such as whether at least one is required.

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 verb and resource: search for issues based on a specific user's involvement, and it enumerates the relevant roles (assignee, reporter, creator, watcher, any). This distinguishes it from page-focused sibling tools like search_pages_by_user_involvement, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar issue-search siblings such as list_issues_by_user_role.

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 the tool is for finding issues connected to a user across multiple involvement types, and mentions comprehensive filtering. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_issues_by_user_role or search_jira_issues, and it does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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