sonar_get_file_issues

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

Describes the return format (line number, rule, severity, fix message) but no additional behavioral traits like read-only nature or rate limits. With no annotations, it's adequate but not rich.

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: first defines core function, second adds usage and output shape. Efficient, no 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?

Given 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and output shape well. Could mention error handling or preconditions, but not essential.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates filePath relative path and pullRequest scope. No extra constraints or examples.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'open SonarQube issues for a specific source file'. Differentiates from siblings like sonar_get_pr_issues (PR-level) and sonar_get_duplication_report.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user asks about issues in a particular file they are editing or viewing', providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient for typical use.

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