paperclip_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'optional filters' hints at query behavior, but the description does not disclose pagination defaults, how multiple filters combine, or result ordering. It adds modest context but leaves important behavior unspecified.

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?

A single tightly-worded sentence with zero wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the filter capability is stated compactly.

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?

The tool has six optional filters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description should at least cover return shape or pagination semantics. It covers neither; an agent knows what inputs are accepted from the schema but not what comes back or how filtering behaves across pages.

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%, with all six parameters and their enums already documented in the schema. The description's generic 'optional filters' phrase adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('issues/tasks on the Paperclip Kanban board'), and mentions optional filters. The phrasing 'List all' distinguishes it from the singular get_issue sibling, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and 'List all issues/tasks' — an agent can infer this is for browsing the full issue set rather than fetching a single issue (get_issue). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion, or mention of alternatives.

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