list_code_scanning_alerts_for_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It fails to disclose pagination, filtering defaults, return format, or any side effects. While listing is inherently read-only, this is not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it could modestly expand without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the 'state' filter, the interpretation of 'ref', or the response structure, leaving the agent without enough context for safe autonomous use.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'ref' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving 'state' and other parameters unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, so an agent cannot infer how to filter alerts.

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 'List code scanning alerts for a repository' uses a clear verb and specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues or list_pull_requests. The scope 'for a repository' aligns with the required owner/repo parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the action without context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.

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