getIssues

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'list'—no mention of pagination, filtering capabilities, response format, or any important constraints. With no extra behavioral disclosure, this is a minimal and underinformative description.

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 extremely short, but brevity here results in under-specification rather than concise utility. It is a fragment that omits critical detail, and it does not provide a complete or informative summary of the tool's behavior.

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?

This tool has a large, nested queryParams schema, no output schema, and many closely related sibling tools. A two-word description is wholly inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke it. It fails to mention filtering, pagination, included resources, or how it differs from getIssue and search.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides no explanation of the required 'format' path parameter or the extensive queryParams filter object. The agent is left with dozens of undocumented parameter names and no semantic guidance.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List issues'. It clearly identifies a read/list operation and is distinguishable from getIssue (single issue) and createIssue/updateIssue/deleteIssue. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related search or getQueries tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use getIssues versus getIssue, search, or getQueries. No context is given about filtering, pagination, or common use cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and sibling names.

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