ci_build_actions_issues_get_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. The path does at least imply a read operation, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 single sentence is a redundant echo of the tool name and path rather than front-loaded useful content. Brevity here reflects absent information, not efficient writing.

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 simple two-parameter relationship GET with no output schema, the description should at least clarify relationship vs. related semantics, pagination, or the returned identifier shape, and it does none of these. The schema covers the inputs, but the agent still lacks the context needed to choose this tool confidently.

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% and both parameters ('id', 'limit') are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as pagination semantics for 'limit'.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name as an HTTP path ('GET /v1/ciBuildActions/{id}/relationships/issues'), which the name already encodes. It conveys that this is a read of the to-many relationship between a CI build action and its issues, but adds no distinguishing information versus the sibling 'ci_build_actions_issues_get_to_many_related'.

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 use this endpoint, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With many near-identical '*_get_to_many_relationship' tools in the list, the agent gets no routing help at all.

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