List Coordination Issue Activities

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

The description complements the annotations by specifying the HTTP method (GET), the return format (paginated JSON array with metadata), and the required parameter. It adds useful context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise with five sentences that front-load the core purpose. It includes API endpoint and required parameter information without unnecessary fluff. Slightly more detail on filters could improve it.

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 covers basic usage, pagination, and required parameter, but lacks explanation of filter parameters and the view option. Given the schema richness, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It explains page and per_page for pagination and notes required project_id, but does not elaborate on filter parameters or the view enum. 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 states the tool lists activities in coordination issues and mentions paginated overview and filtering. However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_coordination_issues' or 'list_coordination_issue_activity_feed_items', leading to minor ambiguity.

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 advises when to use the tool (for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. This leaves some room for interpretation.

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