List annotation issues

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of the 'refresh' parameter (reconcile against GitHub). The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context about the reconciliation effect without going into full depth (e.g., rate limits).

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence efficiently explains the optional refresh parameter. No superfluous words.

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?

For a simple list tool with two parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and the refresh behavior. It could be more complete by hinting at the default state (e.g., without refresh) or the return format, but it is largely adequate.

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 50% (only 'refresh' has a description). The tool description adds meaning by explaining that 'issues' are per-annotation and that 'refresh' reconciles with GitHub. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of 'annotation_id', leaving some semantic gap.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'tracker (GitHub) issues opened from an annotation', with the added nuance of returning live state. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_project_issues' which lists project-level 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'list_project_issues' for project-level issues. Usage is implied but not guided with exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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