List Available Filters For Coordination Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds pagination details and required project_id, but includes a misleading statement about returning Coordination Issues instead of filter options, reducing transparency.

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 somewhat verbose and includes repetitive phrases (e.g., 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues' conflicts with the purpose). Could be more concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description only states 'array of objects' and mentions pagination metadata without detailing the structure of each filter option object. This leaves the agent guessing about the return format.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions project_id as required and page/per_page for pagination, but does not explain the `locale` parameter or add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 title and description clearly state this tool returns available filters for Coordination Issues. However, the description contains a contradictory line 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues' which could confuse the agent about what is being returned.

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 vague usage guidance ('enumerate Coordination Issues when you need a paginated overview') but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `list_coordination_issues` or specify when to use this filter options endpoint instead.

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