List Coordination Issue Assignable Users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description generally aligns with, but the description claims the tool returns 'Coordination Issues' rather than assignable users. This inaccuracy reduces transparency about what the tool actually outputs. Additional details like pagination metadata are mentioned but incomplete.

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 moderately concised but contains contradictory statements that waste space. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the confusion between 'assignees' and 'issues' could be avoided. Every sentence does not earn its place due to the inconsistency.

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, so the description must explain the return structure. It mentions a 'paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues' but this is inaccurate (should be assignable users). The description lacks details on the response format, pagination metadata, and error handling, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 parameters (project_id, page, per_page) are well-documented in the schema. The description adds useful context by stating 'Required parameters: project_id' and hinting at pagination control, though it incorrectly describes the return value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 states 'Lists potential assignees for Coordination Issues' but then contradicts itself by saying 'Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues' and 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues.' This creates confusion about the tool's true output, making the purpose unclear.

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 minimal context for when to use the tool, stating 'Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues...' which is incorrect. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_assignable_users or list_coordination_issues, leaving the agent without guidance on when to select this tool over others.

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