List issues for a heartbeat run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and the endpoint, which provides minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. No mention of pagination or filtering behavior.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it lacks essential parameter and usage details. It is concise but under-specified.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only list), the description should still mention what the returned issues contain, any default sorting, or pagination. The existence of an output schema mitigates some concerns, but the description itself is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 single parameter runId has no description in the input schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its purpose, format, or how to obtain its value. This is a critical gap for correct usage.

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 states 'List issues for a heartbeat run', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id_events, though the resource (issues) is distinct enough.

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 provides the HTTP method and path but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pc_get_issues_by_id_runs or pc_get_heartbeat_runs_by_run_id. No prerequisites or context for invocation are given.

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