List issue notes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that both user and system notes are included and that order can be chronological or reverse, providing extra context about the results.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It clearly conveys the essential 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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the function and sorting options, making it complete for typical usage.

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 provides descriptions for 'project' and 'issue_iid' only. The description adds a hint about sorting ('chronological or reverse order') but does not clarify the 'sort' vs 'order_by' parameters or 'page'/'per_page'. Overall, parameter coverage is limited.

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 function: listing user and system notes on a GitLab issue. It distinguishes itself from other note-related operations (e.g., create_issue_note) and specifies the scope (a single issue).

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 when to use it (when retrieving notes for an issue) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It is clear enough for common use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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