paperclip_list_approval_issues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds return format details (pagination envelope with fields), error handling (401, 404), and explains output format options. No contradictions with 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?

Well-structured with clear sections: brief intro, Args table, Returns, Examples, Error Handling. Each section adds value without redundancy. Information is well-organized and easy to parse.

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, description fully documents return structure (pagination envelope, item fields). Covers error cases and parameter constraints. Provides context for when to use, making it self-contained.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats param info but incorrectly states limit, offset, response_format are optional when schema marks them required. This misleads about parameter optionality. Adds example value for approvalId, which is helpful, but the error reduces reliability.

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?

Clearly states it lists issues linked to a specific approval request. Uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'issues linked to approval', distinguishing it from generic list_issues and get_approval.

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?

Explicitly provides use-case examples: 'Use when inspecting which issues are gated on a pending approval before deciding to approve or reject' and 'Don't use when you need approval metadata — use paperclip_get_approval instead'. Offers clear guidance on alternatives.

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