list-sub-issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the parent issue has no sub-issues. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand execution nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list tool. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's passable but not comprehensive.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses a parent issue ID, which is already covered. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('all sub-issues of a parent issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issues' or 'get-issue', which might also retrieve issue data but with different scopes or filters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'list-issues' with a parent filter or 'get-issue' for detailed parent data. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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