get_issues

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a read operation with 26 optional parameters, the description is insufficiently transparent.

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 lacks structure. It is minimal but not overly verbose; however, it could benefit from bullet points or additional context without becoming bloated.

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 the tool's complexity (26 input parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain default behavior, pagination, sorting, or the scope of issues returned. The schema provides details but the description should offer a higher-level summary.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Project IDs', 'Keyword to search for in issues'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Returns list of issues', clearly indicating a read operation that retrieves multiple issues. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (single issue) and 'count_issues' (count). However, it does not mention the extensive filtering capabilities implied by the input 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' or 'count_issues'. The description lacks context on appropriate use cases for listing vs. retrieving single items or counts.

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