get_my_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves issues but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's read-only or has side effects, pagination behavior beyond max_results, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it's efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains that 'status' filters by status with examples ('To Do', 'In Progress', 'Done') and that 'max_results' sets a maximum with a default of 10. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get issues assigned to the current user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('issues assigned to the current user'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (which likely gets a specific issue) or 'search_issues' (which might allow broader filtering), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is filtering issues by status and limiting results, but this is parameter information, not usage guidance.

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