List or search Paperclip issues

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description goes further by revealing the compact Markdown output format, the default 'all visible issues' behavior, and the token-threshold condition where results are inline versus returned as a snapshot path. This is meaningful behavioral context that structured fields do not provide.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information: endpoint/format, default behavior, filter/limit effects, threshold-based output, and routing to a sibling. 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?

The description covers the core usage and the unusual snapshot-path behavior, but with 13 parameters and no output schema it leaves meaningful gaps: specific filter parameters are not enumerated, and the snapshot path mechanism is not explained. It is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With only 23% of parameters described in the schema, the description needed to compensate. It only says 'Filters narrow the list; limit caps it,' which is generic and names only the limit parameter. The other 10 filter parameters (label_id, origin_id, parent_id, etc.) remain semantically unexplained, so the description falls short of making the parameters usable.

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, 'Return a compact Markdown list from GET /api/companies/:companyId/issues', and clarifies the default scope ('all visible company issues'). The final sentence explicitly distinguishes it from the singular paperclip_issue tool, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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 states when to use the tool (to get a list of issues) and explicitly points to paperclip_issue for detail on a single issue. It also explains the effect of no filters/no limit and that filters narrow the list, giving the agent clear conditions for parameterization.

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