List issues

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that results include the status name and human identifier, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any prerequisites.

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 short sentences carry all the essential information, with the verb and resource first, the optional filter second, and result details last. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the filter, and notable result fields. It leaves out ordering and full result shape, but those are minor for this complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that projectId is an optional filter, but it does not describe the 'limit' parameter; the schema's default/min/max constraints partially fill that gap.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'issues', and adds an optional 'projectId' filter, making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like huly_get_issue, but the resource and plural verb make the intended use evident.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by projectId' implies that this tool is for retrieving issue collections, possibly scoped to a project. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over huly_get_issue or huly_list_projects, leaving the decision to inference.

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