Show A Coordination Issue (REST V2.0)

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that filters from the scoped collection apply, which is behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 the purpose in the first sentence. It is structured logically: what it does, what it supports, when to use, required parameters, API metadata. No extraneous information.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should compensate. It only says 'Returns a JSON object describing the requested Coordination Issues,' which is vague. More detail about the response structure would be beneficial, making this dimension a bit incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters and the endpoint path but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions for each parameter. The mention of 'included' is already in the schema.

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 a single coordination issue, with the verb 'fetch' and the resource. It distinguishes from list endpoints by specifying 'single issue' and mentions the scoped collection, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use (to fetch full details by identifier) and mentions support for 'included' like index. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use (e.g., when needing a list or bulk), nor does it mention alternatives, which would improve clarity.

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