list_problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by naming the required scope ('Needs problems.read'), which the agent needs for auth planning. It says nothing about the default 24-hour window, result volume, or pagination behavior, so it only partially fills the behavioral gaps.

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 brief sentences, endpoint and permission front-loaded, with no filler. Nothing in the text is redundant with the schema.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the definition covers the endpoint and auth scope but omits the implicit time-window default and the pagination model that materially change what comes back. The rich schema descriptions carry most of the burden, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 86%, with sort, time range, selectors, and next_page_key all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, notably omitting the impactful default of a trailing 24-hour time window.

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 problems') and maps it to the underlying endpoint GET /api/v2/problems, which is more than a name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_security_problems, which is also a 'list problems' operation, leaving a small ambiguity an agent must resolve by name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_problem, investigate_problem, or list_security_problems. The only context is the permission requirement, which tells the agent it can run it but not when it should.

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