list_executions_by_issue

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

The description discloses that the tool returns executions 'across every cycle' and explains the issue parameter format. However, it does not cover pagination (offset/max_records), the 'expand' parameter, or behavior when the issue is not found. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but is incomplete.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a helpful example. No wasted words, though a bit more structure could improve readability.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters with only one explained, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return format, pagination, or the effect of 'expand' and 'action', leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'issue' parameter format, leaving 'action', 'offset', 'max_records', and 'expand' undocumented. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 lists all executions for a single test issue, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('executions of a single test issue'). It also mentions the parameter format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_executions' or 'search_executions', which also list executions.

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 a clear use case ('flaky-test diagnosis and coverage checks'), implying when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings such as 'search_executions' or 'get_executions_by_test'.

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