issues_list

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, but it only says 'List issues for a build'. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works via the limit parameter, whether issues include warnings/errors, or any rate limits. The minimal wording provides only the most basic expected behavior.

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 category tag and clearly states the action and object. There is no fluff or redundant information. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification, losing points for not including any usage context within the same tight structure.

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 large sibling set and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain what 'issues' means (e.g., build errors, warnings, test failures), how the result set is ordered, or any interaction with other tools. The tool is simple, but the lack of guidance makes it inadequate for an agent to select confidently among many list tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It clarifies that 'build_id' is the relevant identifier for the build, but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its default value. The description adds only minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema fields.

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 states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'issues for a build', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crashes_list or test_results_list, which also operate on build-related data. The bracketed '[XcodeCloud/BuildArtifacts]' adds a category hint but not enough to distinguish it from similar list tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crashes_list, test_results_list, or builds_list. The description only says 'List issues for a build' without mentioning preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer when 'issues' are the target.

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