get_issues

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

No annotations provided, so description covers behavior: query composition, reuse of field set, default comment exclusion, format options. Does not mention read-only nature or error handling, but sufficient given primary functionality.

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?

Efficiently structured: concise intro, rationale, then enumerated Args. Front-loaded with key purpose, no redundancy.

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?

With output schema present, return details are covered. The description covers purpose, params, constraints. Minor gap: error behavior (invalid IDs, rate limiting) not mentioned, but overall sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly documents each parameter (ids as comma-separated IDs/URLs, fields, format, include_comments, instance) with defaults and constraints, adding significant value.

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 'batch-fetch multiple issues in one round-trip' and distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue (single) and search_issues (query-based).

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?

Provides explicit use cases (known ID list, active-focus picks) and limitations (up to ~100 IDs, splitting large lists). Does not explicitly contrast with all alternatives but context is clear.

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