sonar_get_pr_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return format (grouped by file with rule, line, severity, message) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or describe potential side effects or limits. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but explicit safety information is missing.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver purpose, usage guidance, and output structure without any redundant words or filler. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers input requirements and output format (grouped by file with issue details). It does not address error conditions or absence of issues, but for a straightforward list retrieval, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions are already clear in the schema. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating that pullRequest is a number and severity is optional with enum values. It does not explain parameter usage nuances or format expectations 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 the tool retrieves all open SonarQube issues for a specific PR, grouped by file. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the use case (user asks about issues on PR, branch, or 'what does Sonar say') and mentions return structure, making the purpose distinct and actionable.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool (when user asks about issues on PR, branch, or 'what does Sonar say'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for other needs, though the differentiation is implied by context.

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