Get Workspace Issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output nature ('structured JSON') and the meaning of the returned data, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or pagination. For a read-only get, the implicit read semantics carry most of the load, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a short domain definition and a clearly-marked NOTE for routing. Every sentence earns its place, though the definition sentence is a mild luxury rather than strictly necessary to invoke the tool.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on selection guidance and the alternative. Combined with full schema coverage and no annotations, it is complete enough for correct invocation, missing only non-essential behavioral detail.

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 each parameter (limit, since, severity, workspace_name) is already documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get current issues for a workspace') and even defines what an 'issue' is in this domain, which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_issue_details, which an agent would still need to disambiguate separately.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance ('For questions like "issues related to neo4j"... prefer workspace_chat') and names the alternative along with the reason (semantic search and keyword filtering). It then states the positive selection condition ('Use this tool only when you need raw JSON for programmatic processing'), leaving nothing to inference.

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