get_my_issue_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scoping constraint ('authenticated user') and the related-data capability, but says nothing about pagination defaults, limits, or result shape.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, but the first two are near-duplicates ('Get all assigned issues' / 'Retrieve all issues assigned to the authenticated user'), so a full sentence is spent restating the same fact.

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 read-only collection tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it establishes scope and the available refinement dimensions. It stops short of explaining the nested argument structure or pagination behavior that an agent needs to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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 single top-level 'query' object carries no description (coverage reported as 0%), so the description does useful work by naming the four capabilities it wraps: filters, sorting, pagination, and relations. However it never states that these live inside the nested 'query' object, leaving room for a malformed call.

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 with scope: 'Retrieve all issues assigned to the authenticated user.' The 'my/assigned to me' scoping implicitly separates it from get_issue_collection, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It tells the agent what can be done (filters, sorting, pagination, relations) but not when to prefer this tool over get_issue_collection or get_my_issue_tasks_collection, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the 'assigned to me' scope rather than stated.

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