getProjectIssuesBreakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the default-branch behavior, the mutual exclusivity of branch and pullRequest, the branchAdvisory retry instruction, and the module definition ('first componentPath segment'). It does not describe pagination or response size, but the output schema exists and the added context is substantial.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then covers scoping behavior, then discovery/retry guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the density of the branch/pullRequest guidance could be slightly streamlined. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool with complex scoping semantics.

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 complex read-only aggregation tool with 9 optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key decision points: when to use it, how module grouping works, how branch/PR scoping behaves, and how to discover the right refs. The only minor gap is pagination/response-size expectations, but the output schema and the tool's aggregation nature make that less critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the module concept ('first componentPath segment'), clarifying the default-branch behavior, and explicitly naming discovery tools for branch, pullRequest, and componentPathPrefix. It doesn't add syntax details for every parameter, but it compensates well for the most ambiguous ones.

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 verb ('Count'), a resource ('project issues'), and a clear dimension ('by logical module and rule'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling getProjectIssuesSummary by noting it is 'intended for multi-module projects' and returns module/rule facets. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for multi-module projects, and it explains when to pass branch/pullRequest explicitly versus relying on the default. It also names sibling tools (listProjectBranches, listProjectPullRequests, listComponents) as discovery alternatives, and even instructs retrying with branchAdvisory. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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