get_related_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the fact that the result is a list rather than a single issue — marginal, but not contradictory, value on top of the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though efficiency here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description should clarify what a "related issue" is, whether the result is paginated, and whether issueId or issueKey (or both) should be supplied. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at the return shape for a list-producing tool.

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 100% and both parameters carry their own examples ('PROJ-123', 12345), so the description does not need to explain them. It also offers no guidance on the fact that both are optional and how they interact (either/or vs. both), leaving that to the schema alone.

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 a verb and resource ("Returns list of issues related to a specific issue"), so the basic purpose is recoverable. However, "related" is never defined and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue, get_issue_comments, or add_related_issue — an agent cannot tell which tool supplies the "related" graph data on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the obvious companions add_related_issue/remove_related_issue that manage the same relation. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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