list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Lists' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention any side effects. It also does not describe pagination behavior, though page/page_size parameters exist in schema.

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 concise—only two sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and high parameter description coverage, the description provides enough context for basic use. However, it could mention what the response contains (e.g., list of issues) and pagination details, though these are inferable from schema.

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 high (80%), so the description needs to add little extra. The description mentions filtering by type and status, which aligns with schema fields, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what's already in the property descriptions.

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 issue groups for an app and specifies filtering by type and status. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools get_crashes and get_feedback by highlighting its status filtering and combined results capability.

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 says 'Use this instead of get_crashes or get_feedback when you need status filtering or combined results,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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