getBlockerChain

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: traversal is recursive in both directions and returns full dependency chains. This is useful context not inferable from the annotations or schema, though it does not cover edge cases like cycles or depth limits.

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 filler: the first sentence states the core behavior and scope, and the second sentence provides a direct pointer to the relevant sibling tool. The most important information is 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 read-only, single-parameter tracing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and sibling differentiation. It does not mention potential cycle handling or whether the full chain includes the starting issue itself, but these are minor given the annotations and schema context.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, issueId, and no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly document the parameter, but the tool name and the context of tracing relations make it reasonably clear that issueId identifies the starting issue. This is adequate for a single self-explanatory parameter, but the description misses the chance to explicitly say 'starting from the given issue.'

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 names a specific verb ('Trace') and a specific resource ('blocks/blocked_by relations'), and further defines the scope as recursive in both directions, returning full upstream and downstream chains. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling getIssueTree, which handles parent/subtask hierarchy and other relation types.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use getIssueTree for parent/subtask hierarchy and other direct relation types.' It also scopes its own applicability to exactly blocks/blocked_by relations, leaving no ambiguity about when to select it.

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