redmineflux_core_my_workload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting by priority and the default limit, and suggests a lower limit for quick overview. However, it does not clarify issue status inclusion or the exact meaning of 'assigned', leaving some ambiguity.

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 brief and well-structured: purpose first, then usage triggers, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return ordering, and parameter behavior. There are no significant gaps.

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?

The description explicitly explains the limit parameter ('Maximum issues to return') and adds practical guidance ('Use 5 for quick overview'), going beyond the schema's default value. This adds meaningful semantic value.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('current user's assigned issues'), and scope ('across all projects'), while also noting sorting by priority. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or critical_issues.

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?

It explicitly provides usage triggers: 'what should I work on?', 'what's on my plate?', or 'my tasks'. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the given use cases are sufficient for tool selection.

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