getMyIssues

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that the tool operates against the currently authenticated API-key user and does not require a prior user-ID lookup. Given readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already cover the safety model, this is a strong addition, though it does not detail response pagination or filtering edge cases.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately route to relevant alternatives. There is no filler, repetition, or gratuitous detail.

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?

With an output schema present, no return-value description is needed. The 5 optional params are mostly described in the schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The only slight gap is the lack of guidance on limit/offset usage, but overall the description is complete enough for correct use.

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 already has useful descriptions for sort, statusId, and projectId, so the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. Because limit and offset are still undocumented and the description does not compensate for that gap, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Browse issues'), a specific scope (assigned to the currently authenticated API-key user), and the key benefit (no need to first resolve the user ID). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listIssues and getUserWorkload in one sentence.

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?

It explicitly routes to alternatives: getUserWorkload for aggregated workload metrics and listIssues for another assignee. This gives the agent clear decision heuristics about which sibling to pick based on the user's goal.

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