list_issue_relations

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds value by specifying the exact types of relations returned and that identifiers are 'resolved', which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical clarification and alternative. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must partially compensate. It mentions the two types of relations and 'resolved identifiers', but does not detail the structure of each relation object (e.g., fields like id, url, etc.). Still, for a simple list tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not improve upon it.

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?

Description explicitly states 'List all relations of an issue' and details the types of relations returned: 'blockedBy' and 'relations' with resolved identifiers. It also clarifies what is not included, distinguishing it from potential confusion with the sibling tool.

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?

Directly states what the tool does not return ('Does NOT return issues that this issue blocks') and provides an explicit alternative: 'use list_issue_relations on the target issue to see that'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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