List Issue Notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds lifecycle behavior (deprecation and removal version) that annotations cannot express, but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or pagination for issues with many notes. Minor gap, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (deprecation + replacement) is front-loaded before the functional description.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety implications (via annotations), and migration path. The only missing piece is what the returned note objects look like, which matters somewhat since no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter (`issue_id`), and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a 'Numeric issue ID' description and numeric bounds. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('List all notes (comments) attached to a MantisBT issue') and parenthetically disambiguates 'notes' as comments. It also declares the tool's deprecation status up front, so an agent immediately knows what it does and that it is legacy.

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 an explicit when-not-to-use rule and a named replacement with exact invocation syntax (`get_issue` with `select: "notes"`), plus a removal timeline (2.0.0). This is about as actionable a routing instruction as a deprecated tool can carry.

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