get_issues

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: composing an OR query, reusing get_issue's field set, normalizing output, defaulting include_comments to false for performance, and a ~100 ID limit. These details meaningfully inform an agent's expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, with a front-loaded purpose statement and a clear Args breakdown. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

Covers invocation details, defaults, performance rationale, output shape, and limits. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly, especially with the output schema already present.

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 0%, but the Args section thoroughly explains every parameter: ids format and limits, fields override semantics, format values, include_comments default, and instance optionality. This fully compensates for the schema's silence.

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 opens with 'Batch-fetch multiple issues in one round-trip,' a specific verb and resource that clearly states functionality. It also distinguishes itself from singular get_issue and search-based alternatives by emphasizing batch retrieval of known IDs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful when you already have a known ID list' and contrasts with the one-request-per-issue approach, implying when not to use it. It also provides practical guidance on splitting large ID lists.

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