Search AL-Go Resolved Issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful limitation — the corpus is capped at the 100 most recently closed issues, so open issues and older resolutions are invisible — but it says nothing about return format, whether issue links/IDs are included, or any rate/permission constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and purpose are both delivered immediately.

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 two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope but not result shape or search behavior. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot predict what a result contains or how ranking works.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or relevance-ranking detail beyond the schema, and its mention of '100 issues' is in mild tension with the limit parameter's max of 50.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) and resource (AL-Go issues), plus a scope qualifier (100 most recently closed) and a purpose (tips and workarounds). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools (alg-search-docs, alg-search-discussions) by naming the issue corpus, though it never routes explicitly to those alternatives.

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 hints at when to use it (looking for tips and workarounds), which implies troubleshooting intent, but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance despite five sibling search tools existing. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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