list_ci_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that it returns issues with messages and source locations, which is a useful behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, possible absence of results, or any additional response traits beyond the list contents.

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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the practical when-to-use signal is a terse second sentence. Every sentence contributes value.

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 effectively conveys what the tool returns and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, the note about including message and source file location helps compensate. It doesn't mention the limit parameter or sorting, but the schema covers the parameter, and those details are minor for a list-issues tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents build_action_id and limit with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource (Xcode Cloud issues for a build action), and specifies scope (errors, warnings, analyzer/test failures) and output content (message and source file location). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_ci_build_actions or list_ci_artifacts.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'This is what to read when a build run failed.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the build_action_id schema reference to list_ci_build_actions reinforces the workflow.

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