sieve_issue_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing), which is accurate, but doesn't disclose any caveats like state changes, auth requirements, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with specific examples. Every word adds value. No fluff.

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 parameters and simple operation (list), the description is mostly complete. It defines what it lists and gives examples. Missing details on output format or ordering, but not critical for a simple list tool.

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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 4 is appropriate; it doesn't add unnecessary info but also doesn't explain output format, which could be helpful.

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 it lists scanner health issues and provides concrete examples (unreadable sources, permission errors, parse failures), distinguishing it from siblings like sieve_findings_list or sieve_health_status. The verb 'lists' combined with specific resource 'scanner health issues' gives exact purpose.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sieve_health_status or sieve_findings_list. Missing context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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