list_project_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states it 'gets all issues.' It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, permissions, or what the response looks like, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. The Args block is structured and directly useful for mapping the parameter.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details like pagination, making it not fully complete.

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 input schema only says project_id is a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it is 'The UUID identifier of the project,' adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 'Get all issues for a specific project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue) and list_module_issues/list_cycle_issues (scoped to modules/cycles).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need all issues for a project) but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as get_issue for a single issue. No exclusions are mentioned.

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