Bytebase: list change issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic listing function and status inclusion, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any pagination behavior, default limits, or authentication requirements. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It is concise with no filler or redundancy.

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, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits details like default limit (present in schema) and does not mention that results are filtered by the given project. With no output schema, it hints at return content (statuses) but not the full shape. Given the sibling context, a bit more differentiation would help, but the current level is acceptable.

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 schema already describes 'project' and 'limit' with useful context, and the enum for 'status' is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter details, but with 67% schema coverage it does not need to compensate significantly. The status parameter lacks a textual description, but the enum values are clear.

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 lists schema/data change issues in a project and includes review/approval status. The verb 'List' and resource 'schema/data change issues' are specific, and the scope 'in a project' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and list_databases.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools (e.g., list_projects, get_plan), the description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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