List Coordination Issues In Recycle Bin (POST)

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

The description states it creates a new Coordination Issue, which is false for a listing tool. This contradicts the purpose and the annotations (destructiveHint false but creation is a write operation). No useful behavioral context is added.

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 includes redundant and incorrect statements (e.g., 'Use this to perform the list coordination action on Coordination Issues' and the erroneous creation mention). It could be streamlined to one correct sentence.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params), the description should be straightforward, but the misleading creation statement makes it incomplete. It omits that it returns a list of deleted issues and lacks clarity on response 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but no param info is needed since there are none.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool lists deleted Coordination Issues, but the third sentence incorrectly claims it creates a new Coordination Issue, contradicting the purpose and causing confusion.

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 explicitly specifies when to use this POST variant over alternatives: when query parameters would exceed URL length limits. It does not name the alternative tool but implies the GET version.

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