issues_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results span multiple scans and can be narrowed, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or volume, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing the optional filters. Nothing superfluous.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits the shape of returned issues and, more importantly, any differentiation from the sibling list_issues, which an agent needs to choose correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does partially: it enumerates the valid severity values (info/low/medium/high/critical) that the schema does not constrain, and clarifies scan_run_id as a scan id filter. It does not explain the 'at least' semantics of severity_at_least or the identifier format, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List quality issues across scans') and adds scope ('across scans'). However, it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling list_issues, leaving an agent to guess which one to call.

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?

It implies usage by describing the optional filters ('optionally filtered by minimum severity ... or a scan id'), so an agent can infer when filtering matters. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer list_issues or quality_score instead.

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