list_recruiting_related_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds specific behavioral context: it relies on the 'Issue.relations' mechanism and filters by recruiting target, which goes 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It avoids redundancy with the structured fields.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the core behavior sufficiently for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. The 'target' parameter is well-documented in the schema, and 'limit' is standard.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'tracker issues', and the filtering condition 'whose Huly Related Issues entries point at a Recruiting vacancy, candidate, or applicant target'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists all issues) and list_recruiting_activity (which lists activity on recruiting entities).

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 implicitly indicates usage when one wants to find tracker issues related to recruiting objects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving room for slight ambiguity. The context from sibling tools compensates partially.

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