list_user_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: reporter emails are redacted/omitted, and results can be scoped to a single issue or an entire project.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the mutual-exclusion constraint follows immediately, so nothing needs to be skimmed for.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, the XOR constraint, and a notable privacy behavior (emails omitted). It could mention pagination/return shape explicitly, but the cursor parameter in the schema largely covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: issue_id and project_slug are mutually exclusive and exactly one must be supplied. It also reinforces the scoping effect of project_slug (all feedback in the project).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List user feedback") and disambiguates with a parenthetical explaining what feedback actually is (what end users wrote when reporting a crash). The scope (an issue or a whole project) is stated, so an agent can immediately tell what this returns versus issue/event listing siblings.

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 an explicit invocation rule: "Pass exactly one of issue_id or project_slug," which steers the agent to valid usage. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it (e.g. versus list_issue_events), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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