Issue Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds that it returns live item counts and is cheaper than issue_list. This additional performance and data-freshness context goes beyond the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists the filter types succinctly. The comparative cost note at the end earns its place without bloating the text.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, return contents (filter values with live counts), and a practical cost consideration. It does not describe exact response formatting or error cases, but the provided information is sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'project' is described as 'Project id'. The description adds the tool-specific context of filtering issues but does not provide any new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('valid filter values for issues in a project'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the related issue_list tool by noting it is cheaper for discovering ids, which separates it from that sibling.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool when you need filter values or ids cheaply, instead of issuing a full issue_list call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like user_story_filters_data or when not to use, but the implication is strong enough for the simple scenario.

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