zenhub_search_issues_in_repository

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Search and filter issues' but omits details like whether it returns only open issues, result limits, pagination, or side effects. The agent lacks information about the tool's operational traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and ends with a crucial prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to prepare, but fails to describe return values or results format. It is minimally complete but missing output context.

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 new parameter meanings beyond repeating the schema's 'query' description, but it does provide contextual guidance that repo_ids and pipeline_ids should come from workspace overview, adding marginal value.

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 'Search and filter issues' and the resource 'issues in a workspace by user, repository, and pipeline'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zenhub_search_issues by specifying the need for repository and pipeline IDs, and it references zenhub_get_workspace_overview to obtain them.

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 explicitly instructs to use zenhub_get_workspace_overview first to get the necessary IDs, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for broader searches.

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