list-module-issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all issues' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format/issues are included. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information ('List all issues').

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'issue' in this system, whether results are filtered/sorted, or what authentication is required. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'specific module' which aligns with module_id, but provides no additional context about parameter relationships, valid values, or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all issues') and target resource ('in a specific module'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from generic 'list-issues' by specifying module scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-cycle-issues' which has similar structure but different scope.

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 like 'list-issues' (general listing) or 'list-cycle-issues' (cycle-specific listing). It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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