list_issue_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (event id, message, platform, dateCreated, tags), which is valuable, but does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, or that it is a read-only operation. The cursor parameter is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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 two sentences, starts with the core action and resource, and includes only necessary details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation, the second lists return fields and a use case.

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 list tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a common use case. It omits mentioning pagination explicitly, though the schema's cursor description fills that gap. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains both parameters (cursor and issue_id). The description only says 'specific issue', which does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Numeric issue ID'. No additional parameter-level insight is provided.

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 events') and the target resource ('for a specific issue'), adding the clarifying phrase 'individual occurrences' to distinguish events from issues. This differentiates the tool from siblings like get_event (which likely fetches a single event) and get_issue.

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 gives a concrete use case ('Use to find the most recent occurrence'), providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it fully explicit.

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