Что требует внимания

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool shows automatically tracked issues and that output mode changes based on the key parameter. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's scope with concrete examples, and the second explains parameter-driven behavior. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains both modes of use and the kinds of issues returned. It does not detail the summary structure, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the parameter 'key' is already documented as a problem-type code from the summary and as optional. The description adds the detail that using key yields specific records for one type, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as a registry of system-tracked problems and enumerates concrete categories, so an agent understands what resource it addresses. It lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools, but the nature of the resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 description gives clear operational guidance: without the key parameter it returns a summary across all problem types, and with the key it returns specific records for one type. It does not discuss when to use this tool instead of siblings, but the parameter-level usage is explicit and useful.

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