List Issue Notes

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

Read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior is already covered by annotations, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. It does add a non-obvious data-overlap trait: notes are already embedded in get_issue's response, which prevents a redundant call. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or return shape.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose comes first and the routing caveat second, which is the right order for an agent scanning for a tool to call.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (notes/comments for one issue) and when to reach for it. Output format and ordering remain unspecified, a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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% for the single issue_id parameter ('Numeric issue ID'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema 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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'notes (comments) attached to a MantisBT issue', with the parenthetical disambiguating the domain term. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_issue, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

States the exact condition that selects this tool ('only when you need notes without fetching the full issue') and names the alternative (get_issue) that already returns the same data. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing statement.

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