bb_get_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, default result limits, ordering, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It also does not state whether it returns all issues or requires filters. The minimal text leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral characteristics.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the key information is front-loaded. This is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides no context about filtering options, pagination, or output formats. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, or when to use filters. This is a significant gap for a potentially complex list operation.

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 all eight parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high, and the descriptions for parameters like 'filter', 'state', and 'kind' are clear.

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 'Get issues for a repository' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (issues for a repository). It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like bb_get_issue (singular, for one issue) and bb_get_pull_requests (different resource). It could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'List issues') but is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that bb_get_issue is for a single issue, nor does it explain any prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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