pylon_search_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses query capabilities (AND/OR, nested filters) and common fields, but does not state whether this is strictly read-only, mention pagination behavior, or describe response format. For a search tool, these are notable omissions, though the name implies read-only behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second expands on query capabilities and filter fields. Information density is high and front-loaded.

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 search tool with a nested filter object and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter capabilities, and common fields. It doesn't explain pagination details, but those are in the parameter schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds valuable context beyond the schema by listing common filter fields (state, priority, assignee_id, etc.) and reiterating the nested filter and operator capabilities, which helps agents construct valid filters without external knowledge.

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 resource ('issues in Pylon'), and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_issues by emphasizing filter-based searching and complex query support. It also lists common filter fields, making the scope explicit.

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 implies usage context by highlighting complex queries with AND/OR and nested filters, suggesting this is the tool for advanced filtering. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with list_issues/get_issue, but the context is clear enough without exclusions.

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