list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait (OJS decides sort direction and cannot be reversed) and the effect of omitting published_only. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is partial disclosure but adds value beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose statement followed by two lines of parameter explanations with clear formatting. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain limit, phrase, or journal parameters, nor does it hint at the return structure or pagination. An agent would lack critical details needed to call this tool correctly, such as what phrase filters on or whether journal is required.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains published_only and sort_by in detail, which are the most complex parameters. However, it leaves limit, phrase, and journal unexplained. This provides meaning for some parameters but not all, offering moderate compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Find a journal's issues.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue) and get_current_issue (current issue). The filtering and sorting options further clarify the scope of the operation.

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 explains the meaning of key parameters (published_only, sort_by) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like get_issue or get_current_issue. There is no mention of exclusions or explicit conditions for choosing this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the name and purpose.

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