list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the default stage, accepted aliases, and the newline-separated return format, which adds meaningful behavioral context. However, it omits details about error handling, sorting order, or possible side effects, though these are less critical for a read-only listing tool.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary specifics without any redundant or misleading information.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an existing output schema. The description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, how the stage is specified, and the return format. No important gaps are evident for a basic list operation.

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?

The input schema provides only a default with no description or enum. The description fully documents the single `stage` parameter, listing all valid folder names and aliases, effectively compensating for the 0% schema coverage and adding value beyond the structured data.

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 that the tool lists all issues within a specified stage, using the verb 'list' and specifying both the resource ('issues') and the filtering criterion ('stage'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as read_issue (single issue) and list_notes (notes).

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 does not explicitly provide usage guidance or mention alternatives. While the stage argument and its default are explained, it lacks exclusions such as 'for single issue details use read_issue' or 'for full-text search use search_vault,' making the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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