list_project_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions monitoring 'issue status, severity, frequency, and timing', which hints at what information is returned, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and monitoring aspects. It's front-loaded with the main action, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated or omitted if it doesn't add critical value beyond the first.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters like 'view' and 'format' impact the output. For a list tool with monitoring claims, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'view' or 'format' affect the output. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 issues') and resource ('from a Sentry project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sentry_issue' or 'list_issue_events', which appear to have overlapping functionality with issues.

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 like 'get_sentry_issue' or 'list_issue_events'. It mentions monitoring aspects but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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