superpos_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering behavior (newest-updated first) and basic filtering, but lacks details on pagination, permissions, rate limits, or response format. Adequate but not comprehensive for a read operation.

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?

Very concise at three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (existing but not described), the description covers basic purpose and two parameter meanings but lacks details on all parameters, pagination, and expected output. Leaves significant gaps for a listing 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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains state (lists values) and query (title substring), but ignores hive_id, per_page, assignee_id, and issue_type_id. Per_page has a default but no pagination behavior is described. Incomplete parameter coverage.

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 issues in the hive's planning surface, ordered newest-updated first. It distinguishes from sibling tools like superpos_get_issue (single issue) by implying a list operation.

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 provides usage context by listing possible state values and explaining the query parameter filters by title substring. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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