getIssueRelations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a non-mutating operation, and the description's 'List' aligns with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination, sorting, or scope of results (e.g., whether it returns all relations for an issue). With the annotation covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is well-handled.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return value represents, but it does not. It also omits any parameter details or usage context. While the operation appears simple, the lack of any explanation of the expected result or how to invoke it leaves the description incomplete for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the parameters (pathParams with format and issueId). The description 'List issue relations' does not hint at how to specify the issue or output format. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 'List issue relations' states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('issue relations'), making the core purpose clear. It also distinguishes from the singular sibling 'getIssueRelation' by implying a collection operation, though it does not explicitly name the difference.

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 like getIssueRelation (singular), createIssueRelation, or deleteIssueRelation. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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