get_top_active_issues

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already establish safety. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the schema by stating ranking by priority score and the 'per product when grouped' behavior for limit, which is not present in the schema. It discloses the grouping and exclusion semantics, providing useful context.

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 front-loaded sentence followed by a structured Args list. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every token contributes to the explanation, making it efficient and scannable.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all parameters and the core ranking behavior. However, it omits any mention of how the priority score is derived or potential rate limits, which might be useful but are not essential for a read-only, idempotent tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of parameter meaning. The Args block explains all 6 parameters, including defaults and formats (e.g., 'Comma-separated active states', 'regex to exclude'). This sufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though some entries are terse.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('top active issues'), and criteria ('ranked by priority score'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_issues or search_issues. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or suggest when another tool (e.g., search_issues or get_top_blocked_issues) would be more appropriate. The intent is implied but not stated.

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