get_my_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool retrieves a list, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (only mentions limit parameter), error conditions, or response format details. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with clear sections (Args, Returns) and no wasted words. The main purpose is stated upfront, followed by parameter details. While efficient, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant ('我的議題列表' essentially restates the purpose) and could be more informative about the return structure.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context: no output format details, no behavioral traits, no differentiation from sibling tools, and no error handling information. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only, no descriptions), the description adds significant value by explaining both parameters: 'status_filter' with valid values ('open', 'closed', 'all') and 'limit' with default (20) and maximum (100) values. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '取得指派給我的議題列表' (Get my assigned issues list). It specifies the verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('議題列表' - issues list) with the scope '指派給我的' (assigned to me). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'search_issues' which might also retrieve issues with different scopes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_project_issues', 'search_issues', and 'get_issue', there's no indication of when this specific tool (for issues assigned to me) is preferred over those other issue-retrieval tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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