List annotation issues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral details about the refresh option ('reconcile against GitHub') and that each issue's live state is included, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the optional refresh behavior. Efficient, front-loaded, and no irrelevant content.

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?

With a simple two-parameter tool, clear annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the necessary information: what it lists, the live state, and the refresh behavior. It is sufficiently complete for this complexity level.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for refresh but not annotation_id (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining refresh's effect ('reconcile against GitHub') and implicitly clarifying annotation_id as the source annotation. This adds meaning beyond 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 the tool's action ('List'), resource ('tracker (GitHub) issues'), and scope ('opened from an annotation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_issues (which lists all project issues) and create_github_issue (which creates issues).

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 clear context: it lists issues specifically tied to an annotation, with live state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the annotation-scoped phrasing implies when it's appropriate versus the broader list_project_issues.

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