List Paperclip issue documents

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

Beyond annotations readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description discloses substantive behavior: results are inline below a token threshold and otherwise become an immutable snapshot path, and default output omits document bodies. This gives the agent useful operational expectations without contradicting 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output behavior, and parameter/alternative guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, truncation behavior, default field omission, and the alternative for getting full bodies. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 does for all_fields by explaining that true returns every returned field. issue_id is not explained in prose, but its meaning is clear from the tool purpose and the required schema field, so the gap is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List issue documents as compact Markdown.' It clearly identifies the tool's output format and scope, and distinguishes it from the sibling paperclip_document by noting that the singular tool is for fetching a document body.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use an alternative: if a document body is needed, call paperclip_document, or set all_fields=true. It also explains the inline-vs-snapshot result behavior, which guides the agent on what to expect for large result sets.

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