getIssueTree

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful behavior: the response is a tree containing parent chain to root and depth-limited subtasks, plus direct relations. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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: the first packs the tool's purpose and scope, the second routes to alternatives. Every clause earns its place, and no information is buried.

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 tree explorer with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, depth semantics, and alternatives. The only minor gap is the unspecified default/effect of omitting the optional depth parameter, which an agent might need to know before invoking. Overall it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 covers depth ('How deep to traverse children') but leaves issueId undocumented; the description partly compensates by framing it as 'one known issue' whose tree is explored. It doesn't explain default behavior when depth is omitted or define issueId format beyond the schema's integer type. At 50% schema coverage, the description adds some meaning but not complete parameter semantics.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and object: 'Explore structural context around one known issue' and enumerates the tree's contents (parent chain to root, subtasks to depth, direct relations). It also names sibling tools, making its unique scope clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer getBlockerChain ('recursively traced blockers') and getIssue ('only the single issue's full details'), and the description's own 'around one known issue' establishes the starting context. This is direct routing guidance, not just a vague use case.

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