pylon_list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List issues within a time range,' which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, ordering, or what the returned list contains. The presence of cursor and limit parameters in the schema highlights missing behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List issues') and includes the key qualifier ('within a time range'). There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The tool is a relatively simple list operation with well-documented parameters in the schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral details such as pagination, result format, and whether the listing is ordered. The core purpose is clear, but additional context would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning by indicating the time range is the core filter, but it does not elaborate on limit/cursor semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are sufficient, so this score 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 tool's purpose: 'List issues within a time range in Pylon.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), and the time-range qualifier distinguishes it from related tools like pylon_get_issue (singular) and pylon_search_issues (search-based).

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 such as pylon_search_issues or pylon_get_issue. It does not mention exclusions or recommend an alternative for different use cases. The only hint is the time range, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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