triage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it discloses the Markdown report format, instructs the agent to relay it verbatim instead of rewriting, and reveals the sorting behavior through the four categories. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or whether it uses authenticated user context, but the word 'open issues that involve you' strongly implies a personal read-scoped query.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the resource and sorting, second tells the agent how to handle the output, and third gives the entry-point directive. No wasted filler or repeated schema content.

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 no-required-parameter report tool, this is complete: it tells the agent what scope it covers, how results are organized, what the output format is, and what to do with that output. Parameter details are handled by the schema, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters fully: limit with a default of 60 and repos as an override of the configured scope. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 names a distinct resource ('Open issues that involve you') and a specific presentation ('sorted by whose turn it is'), so a reader knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_issues or get_issue, but the personal-scope and turn-taking organization make the difference clear without that contrast.

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?

'Start here when asked what needs attention' is an explicit when-to-use signal. The description also clarifies scope ('issues that involve you') and how to handle output, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other cases.

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