issues_next

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is safe and repeatable. The description adds that it derives issues from traces, which is consistent but does not elaborate on behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it uses abstract phrasing ('operator tool') that could be clearer. No unnecessary words, but slightly under-specified.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides basic context about the output (current issue + follow-ons) but does not explain input constraints or the notion of 'recent unresolved project traces'. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of any parameters (projectId, projectRef, limit). This is a critical gap; the agent cannot infer how to use these parameters from the description alone.

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 it derives the current issue plus follow-on issues from recent unresolved project traces, which specifies the verb and resource. However, the phrase 'operator tool for queue-oriented recommendations' is somewhat jargon-heavy and doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'suggest' or 'ask'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for queue-based issue recommendations, but does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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