find_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'multiple sources' and 'rank' but does not specify what sources are queried, how ranking works, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. Given the mutation-oriented siblings, the read-only nature is not assumed.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action ('Discover and rank') and includes all necessary scope information. No filler or redundant details are present.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It implies a ranked list of issues but lacks specifics about sources, ranking criteria, or how the saved profile is used. While the parameter surface is simple, the behavioral gaps prevent a higher score.

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%, with both parameters (limit, overrideSkills) already well-documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying that 'user skills' default to a saved profile, and 'overrideSkills' allows replacing them. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 uses a specific verb ('Discover and rank') with a clear resource ('open-source issues') and scope ('matching user skills across multiple sources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage skills or handle PRs, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage is for finding issues based on skills, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or why it should be chosen over sibling tools like analyze_repo_context or get_user_skills.

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