List external objects mentioned by an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds only that it's a GET operation and the required auth. This provides minimal extra behavioral context, such as what exactly is returned or any side effects, which are already covered by 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 very concise at three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. However, it lacks structured sections (e.g., behavior, parameters, returns), but its brevity is generally appropriate.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain returns), the description omits details like pagination, what constitutes an 'external object', or error conditions. For a list operation, this information is missing, leaving the tool's behavior partially undefined.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain the single parameter (path.id). No format, example, or guidance is given. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema, which is insufficient for an agent.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists external objects mentioned by an issue. The verb 'list' and resource 'external objects' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_external_object_summary, leaving room for confusion.

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 mentions the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), providing some usage context. But it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., summary or refresh endpoints), making usage guidelines merely implied.

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