list_project_issues

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

The description adds the pagination hint about 'next_cursor', which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden but only partially addresses it.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose, second adds pagination hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers core purpose and pagination but omits details about limit behavior, response structure (though output schema exists), and when to use cursor. For a three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, it is minimally adequate.

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 description explains the cursor parameter (pagination), but the limit and project_id parameters lack explanation. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps for two parameters.

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 tool lists a project's issues with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions pagination, distinguishing it from single-issue retrieval tools like 'get_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'list_cycle_issues'. The description only provides pagination instructions without context for selection.

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