list_issue_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It omits any statement about being read-only, pagination, permissions, or side effects. The mention of relation types adds scope but not behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' section redundantly restates the schema parameter, adding minor waste. Overall, it is concise and structured appropriately.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the basic purpose, but it lacks usage guidelines and substantive parameter semantics. Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional context.

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 simply repeats the parameter name as 'issue ID,' adding no information beyond the schema's parameter name and type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to provide meaningful guidance such as how to obtain the ID or any constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'an issue's relations' and enumerates example relation types (precedes, blocks, related to). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue_relation and delete_issue_relation, which perform different actions on relations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and purpose. There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools for scenarios like creating or deleting relations.

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