listTrackers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about the purpose (discovering reusable IDs) and clarifies terminology ('issue type'). Does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the reuse guidance is clear. 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?

With an output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains why and when to use the tool and how the result is consumed. Nothing an agent needs to decide on or call the tool is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes that no inputs are needed and explains the output's purpose, though it doesn't detail output structure – but an output schema is present, so this is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb 'Discover' with a clear resource 'valid tracker (issue type) IDs and names' and its purpose for reuse. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like listIssueCategories and listPriorities by specifying trackerId usage.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'before filtering, creating or updating issues' and names the exact tools (listIssues, createIssue, updateIssue) that consume the IDs. No ambiguity about when this tool is relevant.

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