List issues in a tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds filtering options but does not disclose pagination, default result size, or return format. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate value but lacks richer behavioral details.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The most critical information (what the tool does and when to use alternative) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, and description does not mention what fields are returned or any limits. For a list operation, expected return format (e.g., issue IDs, titles) is omitted. Adequate but could be more complete by hinting at the response structure.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description mentions filtering by state, label, type, and query, which rephrases schema info without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already 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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'issues in a Rootr issue tracker', and the optional filters. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool rootr_get_issue by noting that tool is for full details of one 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (list with filters) and an alternative 'use rootr_get_issue for full details of one issue', guiding the agent away from this tool for single-issue detail retrieval.

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