List Coordination Issue Activity Feed Items

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds misleading information about returning 'Coordination Issues' instead of activity feed items. It mentions pagination metadata but does not address other important behaviors such as authentication needs or rate limits.

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 only four sentences but includes inaccuracies and redundancies. It fails to be concise by misrepresenting the return type and mixing up activity feed items with coordination issues.

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, and the description incorrectly states the return type as 'Coordination Issues' instead of activity feed items. It does not fully describe the pagination metadata or other response fields, leaving the agent underinformed about what to expect.

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 reiterates pagination control using page and per_page, which is already in the schema, but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions provide.

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 states it lists activity feed items but then says it returns 'Coordination Issues', creating confusion between the tool's actual purpose and what it claims to return. The verb 'Lists' is appropriate, but the resource is inaccurately described.

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 suggests using this to 'enumerate Coordination Issues', but the tool is for activity feed items, not issues themselves. It does not clarify when to use this versus other list tools like 'list_coordination_issue_activities', nor does it specify when not to use it.

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