Get issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: commentCount and attachment counts are always returned regardless of the includeComments/includeElements flags, and elementAttachment is only populated when filtering by element.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the alternative-naming parenthetical and then the return shape. The output blob is dense and run-on, but with no output schema in the tool definition it is doing necessary work rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does so thoroughly: field list, ISO 8601 UTC timestamps, conditional comments/attachedElements, pagination fields, and the elementAttachment enum values. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented (limit default 500, GUID-vs-name lookup, search semantics, offset, include flags). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond echoing the optional element filter, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the issues of the Issue Manager') and disambiguates the domain term by equating issues with 'Archicad markup entries = BCF topics', which separates it from siblings like get_issue_comments and get_issue_elements. An agent knows immediately this is the enumeration entry point.

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 closing line 'Issue GUIDs from here are accepted by every other issue tool' establishes this as the discovery step for the issue family, and the parameter list implies filtering modes. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_issue_comments or get_issue_elements for retrieving the same data.

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