backlog_get_issues

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

The description mentions pagination (max 20, offset) but contradicts the schema which allows up to 100 results. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what callers should expect regarding data returned. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but fails to fully inform.

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 brief (two sentences) and avoids fluff, but the first sentence is poorly structured ('Performs list issue get'). It is acceptable but not polished.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, and how filters interact. The inaccurate count statement further undermines completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and it introduces a factual error by stating max 20 results while the schema says max 100. This misleading information reduces credibility and does not contribute positively.

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 it performs a list issue operation, which clearly indicates retrieving multiple issues. It is implicitly differentiated from singular tools like backlog_get_issue. However, the phrasing 'list issue get' is awkward and could be more straightforward.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like backlog_get_issue (for a single issue) or other tools. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites.

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