list_project_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all issues' but does not mention pagination, rate limits, error handling, or any side effects (though it is read-only by nature). There is no explicit statement about the return format or potential large result sets.

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 two concise sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional guidance on parameter resolution is relevant and succinct. No wasted words.

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 list operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential steps: what it returns and how to get the parameter. However, it does not mention pagination or result limits, which are common for listing tools, leaving a potential gap for large projects.

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 fully describes the parameter (project_id as uuid). The description adds value by suggesting a method to resolve a readable identifier to a uuid via get_projects, which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent obtain a correct value.

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 action ('Get all issues') and the resource ('for a specific project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_issue_types or get_issue. The mention of 'all issues' implies a collection operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides context on how to obtain the required project_id via get_projects, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue_using_readable_identifier or create_issue. It implies a listing use case but lacks explicit exclusion or comparison guidance.

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