list-issue-property-options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format/structure of returned options. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with issue tracking data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and front-loads the essential 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?

For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the resource type but lacks details about return format, pagination, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The context signals suggest moderate complexity that warrants more guidance.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify what constitutes a 'dropdown/select' property or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('options for a dropdown/select issue property'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issue-properties' or 'get-issue-property', which could cause confusion about when to use this tool versus those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list-issue-properties' and 'get-issue-property' available, the agent lacks explicit direction on whether this tool is for enumerating property values versus property metadata, or any prerequisites for its use.

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