List Migration Issues

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

Annotations already carry the safety-critical information that this is read-only and open-world, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds some useful context about the returned item shape, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or other runtime traits beyond what the annotations and schema give.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the additional type information earns its place by clarifying what an issue entry looks like.

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 two-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is mostly complete: parameters are fully documented by the schema, and the description tells the agent what the returned issues contain. It is only missing minor operational context such as pagination or whether an empty list is a normal return.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described clearly in the schema, so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no extra meaning to course_id or migration_id beyond naming the migration resource.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list issues encountered during a content migration. It also names the issue categories (todo, warning, error), making its scope concrete and distinguishing it from related tools like get_content_migration or list_content_migrations.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives, does not mention prerequisites like an existing migration, and gives no exclusions or follow-up suggestions.

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