get_issues_by_severity

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated or capped despite the word 'all', whether issues are deduplicated, or what fields each issue contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, one sentence of behavior is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so it is maximally concise. However, the brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency, since no sentence carries behavioral or usage information.

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 no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does not say what an 'issue' object looks like, whether the list is bounded, or how results are ordered. For a simple two-parameter tool the gaps are limited but real, and none are covered elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (path, severity enum) are fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that severity acts as a filter, which the schema already conveys; it adds no meaning about path scope (project root vs. file) or what happens if the path is invalid.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issues') with an explicit filter dimension ('specific severity level'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_issues_by_category. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it sits at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_issues_by_category or get_vulnerability_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is 'call this when you want issues filtered by severity,' which is fully derivable from the name alone.

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