getIssueRelations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List issue relations' and says nothing about read-only behavior, required permissions, output format, or error handling. This is a complete absence of 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 short ('List issue relations'), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential structure or elaboration, making it unhelpful for the agent.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object. The description provides no context about required parameters, output shape, or behavior, making it severely incomplete 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 0%, and the description does not mention the required pathParams (format, issueId). The agent gets no help understanding the parameters beyond the raw schema, which is insufficient given the nested object structure.

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 'List issue relations' provides a clear verb and resource, but it doesn't specify the scope (per issue) or distinguish it from the singular sibling getIssueRelation. The plural form implies multiple relations, but the description remains vague without mentioning the required issueId.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no information about when to use this tool versus getIssueRelation, createIssueRelation, or other relation-related tools. The agent receives no context for tool selection.

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