List issue definitions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the output fields (title, description, severity, blocks distribution) and clarifying that issue codes are string slugs, fully disclosing 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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance and a type clarification. Highly efficient.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and the nature of its output (codes are string slugs). No gaps.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage; baseline is 4 per instructions. Description does not need to add param info and does not add any, which is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' with a specific resource 'catalog of review issue definitions', lists the exact fields returned (title, description, severity, blocks distribution), and explicitly distinguishes its role from siblings like list_review_issues by stating it interprets their codes.

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?

Includes a clear directive: 'Use it to interpret the codes returned by list_review_issues and the quality report', providing a precise when-to-use context and connecting it to related tools.

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