List enumerations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by specifying exactly which enumerations are returned and that IDs are included. It does not contradict annotations and provides concrete behavioral context 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?

The description is a single, lean sentence (12 words) that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It uses the active verb 'list' upfront and specifies the exact resources, with no wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it does not describe the output format or include examples, which could be helpful for an AI agent to understand the returned structure. It is functional but not enriching.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly omits any mention of parameters.

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 specific enumeration types (trackers, statuses, priorities, time-entry activities) with their IDs, using the verb 'list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues and list_projects that list entities rather than lookup values.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or context, such as needing enumeration IDs for creating or updating issues. Usage is only implied.

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