get_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Returns list of issues' says nothing about pagination, default limits, rate limiting, or whether results are read-only. The tool's complexity (26 parameters) demands far more detail.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is overly minimal for a tool with 26 parameters and many siblings. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 tool with 26 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain when to use filters, how pagination works, or what the return structure is. Critical usage context is missing.

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?

All 26 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No extra context like default values or parameter interactions is provided.

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 'Returns list of issues' clearly states what the tool does, but lacks specificity to differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (single issue) or 'count_issues'. It does not mention the extensive filtering or pagination capabilities evident in the schema.

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 alternatives such as 'count_issues', 'get_issue', or other get_* tools. The description does not specify context like retrieving filtered issue lists or handling large result sets.

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