list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral facts: cursor-based pagination semantics, a hard page_size cap of 100, and exact filter matching behavior (substring on rule name). It omits auth requirements, default sort order, and returned fields, but the operational behavior an agent needs to page correctly is disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a compact filter list and pagination rules; every sentence adds usable information. The terse filter-list formatting is slightly telegraphic but nothing is wasted or padded.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers filtering, pagination, and the sibling hand-off well enough to invoke correctly. It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of returned issues, which is the only remaining gap.

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, and it does: severity enumerates the five accepted values, category is mapped to vulnerability_category, search is defined as a substring match on rule name, cursor is tied to the returned cursor for next-page fetching, and page_size gets a stated cap. All six parameters gain meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AI-SPM issues') scoped to the workspace, and explicitly names the sibling 'get_issue' as the detail-oriented alternative, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 routes to get_issue 'for full detail and remediation guidance on a specific issue,' which is a clear use-vs-alternative statement. It does not state when not to use this tool (e.g., searching across workspaces), but the selection guidance is unambiguous.

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