List problem statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so well: it discloses scoping to a configured base directory, paging behavior (default 25, capped at 100, out-of-range clamped not errored), and glob semantics (case-insensitive, None lists all, empty string matches nothing). These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, return fields, and purpose, then moves to ref semantics, glob, and paging. Dense but well-ordered; the ref clarification is slightly run-on, but each clause carries distinct, useful 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still names the returned fields. Filtering, paging, and the ref/id distinction are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: glob is documented with matching target, case-insensitivity, and the None-vs-empty-string distinction; max_results/offset are documented with defaults, cap, and clamping. Every parameter's runtime meaning is explained beyond the bare typed schema.

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 (list) and resource (problem statements), and enumerates exactly what is returned: 'Ids, titles, statuses, and refs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_prb by framing itself as 'context before addressing one by id.'

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('for context before addressing one by id') and explicitly routes the 'ref' case to the alternative tool ('use it with the get_prb tool instead'). Both the intended use and the boundary against a sibling are spelled out.

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