ci_build_actions_issues_get_to_many_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. The 'GET' verb weakly implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter, no auth/permission requirements, and no note on what is returned or whether results may be empty for a build action with no issues.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from having no content at all, and the path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 related-list endpoint with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least explain the relationship and the pagination/sparse-field options. Instead it provides only a URL, leaving the agent unable to confidently distinguish this tool from the many similar get-to-many siblings.

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 the schema already documents 'id', 'limit', and 'fields_ciIssues'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or sparsity semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is the raw HTTP path repeated twice: 'GET /v1/ciBuildActions/{id}/issues (GET /v1/ciBuildActions/{id}/issues)'. It restates the tool name rather than describing intent, though the path does hint that it lists CI issues attached to a build action. No distinction from siblings such as ci_build_actions_issues_get_to_many_relationship or ci_issues_get_instance.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, what alternative to use for a single issue (ci_issues_get_instance), or what the 'to_many_related' semantics mean relative to the corresponding '_relationship' sibling. The agent must infer everything from the URL.

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