list_issue_subscribers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the tool's name and provides no additional context about behavior, such as read-only status, pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 a single five-word sentence that is perfectly front-loaded and wastes no words. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior and context. It fails to mention pagination, required permissions, what the returned subscribers list contains, or how to handle workspace_id. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 50%, with only workspace_id described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that 'id' refers to the issue, though this is reasonably inferable. It does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subscribers on an issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe_to_issue or list_comments. The scope is precise.

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 implies usage for viewing subscribers but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, such as when to use list_comments or get_issue. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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