My Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the key behavioral trait 'assigned to the current user' but does not disclose potential nuances like pagination limits, default state, or scope across projects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. 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?

For a list tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like default state, sorting, or scope of projects. With annotations covering safety, it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description adds no parameter details. However, parameter names (e.g., 'page', 'state', 'labels') are self-explanatory, and the schema provides enums for 'state'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specifies 'List issues assigned to the current authenticated user.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('issues'), and a scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_issues' which likely lists all project issues.

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 implies this tool is for getting the user's own assigned issues, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'gitlab_list_issues' or 'gitlab_get_issue'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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