my_issues

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the open-state default, which is genuinely useful and not derivable from the tool name, but it omits other behavioral traits such as pagination behavior and return format. No contradiction exists since no annotations were provided.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the default-state behavior in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 an 11-parameter tool, the schema is exceptionally well documented, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source for behavioral context. It covers the core purpose and default state but says nothing about response shape, pagination consequences, or auth prerequisites beyond what 'authenticated user' implies.

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% — all 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly bounded resource ('issues assigned to the authenticated user'), which precisely differentiates it from siblings like list_issues (project-wide) and get_issue (single issue by ID). The scope qualifier leaves no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 'assigned to the authenticated user' qualifier implies when to use this tool, but no alternatives are explicitly named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. Given the large sibling set including list_issues, explicit routing would be valuable.

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