get_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order, the finished-crawl requirement, and the include_fixes verbosity behavior. It does not describe the output record shape, pagination/limit effects, or side effects, though 'get' implies read-only.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-line summary, a short 'start here' note, and a compact parameter reference. Every sentence adds information without repetition or filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but incomplete. It covers the key invocation details and ordering behavior, but does not clearly describe the shape of the returned issue records or how the 'limit' parameter interacts with the result set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for crawl (folder name from list_crawls or absolute path), priority (allowed values), and include_fixes (verbose text). It omits 'limit', but that parameter is self-explanatory and has a sensible schema default.

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 identifies the tool as returning a 'priority-ranked issue register from a finished crawl' and explains the sorting. It also contrasts itself with raw CSV rows, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_export or list_exports.

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?

'START HERE, not with raw CSV rows' gives explicit practical guidance on when to use this tool. It does not name alternatives explicitly or state when not to use it beyond the raw CSV contrast, but the intended context is unmistakable.

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