list_issue_dependencies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains pagination behavior and the 404 error case, which are non-obvious. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., array of issue objects) or sorting behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then pagination details and alternative reference. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (blocking issues), pagination mechanics, error behavior, and relationship to a sibling. It could be slightly more explicit about the result shape, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying pagination semantics (page 1-based, limit max 100, paging strategy) and the dependency-enabled condition. This goes beyond merely restating property names.

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 tool lists issues that block the given issue, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues that BLOCK this issue'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool list_issue_blocks by naming the reverse direction, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use list_issue_blocks for the reverse direction'. Also gives practical usage instructions for pagination (1-based page, limit <= 100, keep paging until fewer than limit) and notes a specific error condition (404 when dependencies not enabled).

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