User Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'proper GraphQL filtering for reliable results', which suggests performance or reliability characteristics not captured in annotations, though it doesn't detail rate limits or authentication needs.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all issues assigned to a specific user') and adds a technical note ('uses proper GraphQL filtering for reliable results') without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, the lack of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., issue format or pagination details), leaving a minor gap in contextual understanding.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying user-based filtering, maintaining the baseline score of 3 since the schema carries the burden effectively.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all issues assigned to a specific user'), specifying the exact scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_issues' (general issues) and 'search_issues' (search-based) by focusing on user assignment with GraphQL filtering.

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 implies usage for retrieving user-assigned issues but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_issues' or 'search_issues'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters.

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