get_top_active_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals defaults (limit=3, group_by_product=false), ranking by priority, and possible grouping, but does not mention whether 'active' means only specific states, auth needs, or any side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a simple list for parameters. The 'Args:' header is slightly redundant for auto-generated schemas but overall efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers major behavioral traits (ranking, grouping, defaults) and parameter semantics. Missing details on what constitutes 'active' beyond default states, but still fairly 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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning beyond type/name (e.g., 'per product when grouped'). However, it does not detail expected format for exclude_patterns or states regex.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'top active issues ranked by priority score', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_top_blocked_issues or get_at_risk_issues.

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 lists arguments with brief explanations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_issues or get_top_blocked_issues. The context is implied but no guidance on exclusion.

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