list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It describes the tool's filtering capabilities, default behaviors (e.g., 'includeClosed' defaults to false), and the structure of returned results (TrellisObjectSummary instances with specific fields). It also implies this is a read-only operation through context ('lists', 'retrieve'), though it doesn't explicitly state this as a safety guarantee.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, available values, filtering options, usage patterns, results) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it's quite lengthy with detailed enumerations and examples—while informative, some of this could potentially be streamlined without losing essential guidance, preventing a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides comprehensive coverage of purpose, parameters, usage, and results. It explains the return format in detail (TrellisObjectSummary fields), which compensates for the lack of output schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly addressing pagination or limits on result sets, which might be relevant for a list operation.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema's 100% coverage. While the schema documents parameter types and basic descriptions, the description provides detailed semantics: it enumerates all valid values for 'type', 'status', and 'priority' parameters, explains what 'scope' means ('Limit results to a specific project or area of work'), clarifies array acceptance for certain parameters, and provides numerous concrete usage examples that illustrate parameter combinations and effects.

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 tool 'lists issues from the task trellis system' with a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('issues'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (which retrieves a single issue) or 'get_next_available_issue' (which suggests a different retrieval pattern), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 for usage ('Essential for discovering existing work items, understanding project structure, and finding issues that need attention') and includes specific usage patterns with examples. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for retrieving a single issue use 'get_issue') or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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