List Coordination Issue Change History

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds sorting behavior and pagination details. However, it states returns 'Coordination Issues' rather than change history entries, which is slightly inaccurate. The added behavioral info is useful but not extensive.

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 about 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It covers sorting, usage, pagination, required params, and API reference. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'paginated' mentioned twice). Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly streamlined.

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 cover return values. It mentions 'paginated JSON array of Coordination Issues' and pagination metadata, but does not describe individual fields. The API endpoint reference adds context. For a list tool, more detail on the returned objects would improve completeness.

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 adds value by explaining how to use page and per_page for pagination and mentioning pagination metadata. It also highlights required parameters. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it returns change history for a CoordinationIssue, sorted most recent first. It uses specific verb+resource. However, it says 'use this to enumerate Coordination Issues' which is slightly misleading as it's not the issues list but their change history. This detracts from perfect clarity.

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 gives a usage suggestion: 'Use this to enumerate Coordination Issues when you need a paginated overview...' and lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_coordination_issues for issues themselves). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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