list_issue_authors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the environment requirement and that it returns a list, but does not reveal additional traits like pagination behavior, deduplication, sorting, or error handling. This provides some context but not deep transparency.

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 four concise sentences with a front-loaded summary, a detailed explanation, a prerequisite note, and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose without excessive verbosity, making it well-structured and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and environment requirement. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination defaults, but the schema already documents these, so the overall package is sufficient.

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 documents each parameter clearly. The description adds a usage example but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the property descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool returns a list of SCM author accounts who contributed to issues, with a specific verb ('Discover'/'Returns') and resource ('SCM author accounts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issue_tags by focusing on authors, and adds use-case context ('useful for reviewer pickers or stats').

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 usage context by mentioning reviewer pickers or stats, and explicitly states the prerequisite that SONARCLOUD_ORGANIZATION must be set. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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