df_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Listar' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'mis issues asignados' transparently scopes results to the authenticated user. It does not explicitly declare side-effect freedom, but the listing verb and scope give sufficient behavioral clarity for a read tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the verb and resource first, followed by the optional filters. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key context: what it does, whose issues it lists, and what filters are available. It does not mention return format, but for a listing tool this is reasonably inferable, and no other critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with both status and project already described with examples. The description only mentions 'filtros opcionales por proyecto y estado,' which restates the schema without adding new semantic detail or context beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 applies.

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's verb ('Listar') and resource ('mis issues asignados en Jira'), specifying the scope as issues assigned to the user. This distinguishes it from siblings like df_issue (which likely targets a single issue) and df_statuses (which lists statuses), so an agent can identify the right tool without ambiguity.

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 usage by stating its purpose (listing assigned issues) and mentions optional filters, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus df_issue, df_statuses, or other siblings. The guidance is implied through the phrasing, but no explicit routing to alternatives is provided.

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