User Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds 'uses proper GraphQL filtering for reliable results', which provides useful context about the reliability of the filtering method, going beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions present.

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 sentence, very concise. It includes a key qualifier ('uses proper GraphQL filtering') that adds value without being verbose. Slightly more detail could be added (e.g., mention pagination), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Combined with the detailed schema and annotations, the description provides adequate context for a simple read tool. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, and sorting defaults. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage; the description does not compensate or enhance parameter semantics.

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 'Get all issues assigned to a specific user', specifying the verb (get), resource (issues), and scope (assigned to a specific user). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issues (which likely lacks user filtering) and search_issues (which is a broader search). The mention of 'proper GraphQL filtering' reinforces its specialized purpose.

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 when to use (when needing issues for a specific user) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative tools. Siblings like get_issues and search_issues exist, but the description does not guide the agent on choosing between them. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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