List issues in a company

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and explains the behavior of the `view` parameter, which adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 three concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, operation details, and parameter guidance. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to cover return values. It covers the purpose, authorization, and key parameter behavior. It could mention pagination or sorting, but the annotations imply open-world semantics, so it is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of the `view` parameter ('compact' for board issue-list row contract, default is broad contract). The required `companyId` is implied by the description and path, so no further explanation is strictly needed.

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 'List issues in a company', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The name and title reinforce this, and the additional details about the `view` parameter help differentiate from other issue-related tools among the many siblings.

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 when to use the `view=compact` parameter for the board issue-list row contract, and notes the default behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other issue-listing tools like `pc_get_issues` or `pc_get_issues_by_id`, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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