get_glitchtip_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation (listing) and describes the return format (issue titles, counts, status, first/last seen timestamps). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a production monitoring tool.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences: one stating the purpose, one providing usage context, and one describing the return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about behavioral aspects like pagination, error handling, or authentication that would be valuable given this is a production monitoring tool with sibling mutation tools available.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all issues from GlitchTip'), specifies the scope ('for the configured project'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing all issues rather than getting a specific issue (get_glitchtip_issue) or resolving one (resolve_glitchtip_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?

The description provides clear context about when to use it ('to see all current errors and exceptions in production'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies this is for monitoring production issues but doesn't contrast with the sibling tools beyond their different functions.

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