linked_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the bidirectional nature of the cross-references ('from an issue, and ones that reference it back'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or whether the result is a list vs. a single object, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the use cases are given in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-style tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns and why an agent would use it. It could mention that the result is a list or that it may be empty, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (repo as 'owner/name' and number as issue number). The description adds the context that 'number' is the issue whose linked items are being retrieved, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('find') and resource ('issues and pull requests cross-referenced from an issue, and ones that reference it back'), and it names two concrete use cases: finding the PR that implements an issue, or the sibling issue a discussion moved to. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and search_issues (query-based search).

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 gives explicit use cases ('Use to find the PR that implements an issue, or the sibling issue a discussion moved to'), which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use cases are specific enough to route correctly against the sibling tools.

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