get_my_open_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait ('Read-only'). However it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when limit is omitted, which matters for a listing tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose and scope front-loaded and the read-only trait appended where it is easy to scan.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and its safety profile. Only the default/pagination behavior of 'limit' is left unstated, a minor gap.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no default value, no note on how many issues are returned when limit is unset.

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (Jira issues), and two scoping constraints (unresolved, assigned to the authenticated user). Those constraints cleanly separate it from get_issue (single issue) and search_issues (arbitrary queries), so an agent can route without opening 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?

The scope ('assigned to the authenticated user', 'unresolved') implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_issues or get_related_issues, and no stated exclusions. Implied usage only.

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