get_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return value (list of issues with type, status, reporter, media) and default parameter values, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read-only listing tool, 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 description is well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by a compact parameter list and return description. It is not overly verbose, though a slightly more concise phrasing could be achieved without losing information.

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?

The tool has only three optional parameters, all thoroughly explained, and an output schema exists. The description provides a complete picture of the tool's behavior and return values. The only missing context is differentiation from sibling tools like get_issue, which is more a usage guideline 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: filter has allowed values ('all', 'open', 'resolved') and a default, limit has a default, and sort has allowed values ('added', 'modified') and a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get Overseerr issues (reports of problems with media).' The verb 'get' plus the specific resource 'issues' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue (singular) and get_requests.

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 a clear explanation of the tool's filtering and sorting options, implying when it might be used (e.g., to list open issues). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_issue for a single issue, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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