List issue feedback votes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which provides additional behavioral context not in annotations. However, it lacks details on pagination, response format, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, the description adds modest value.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first line. The second line adds technical details (HTTP method, authorization class) without unnecessary verbosity. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured; however, it earns a 4 for being lean and relevant.

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 (1 parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and technical details but omits information about what feedback votes represent, any filtering options, or pagination. An agent might need to infer context from usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description remains somewhat terse for full contextual completeness.

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 only parameter, path.id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain this parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is the issue ID. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of any parameter description in both schema and description means the agent must rely on heuristics. A higher score would require explicit mention of the parameter's role.

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 issue feedback votes' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (feedback votes), which aligns with the title. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_comments and pc_get_issues_by_id_approvals by focusing on feedback votes specifically. However, it does not elaborate on what feedback votes entail, so it's clear but not exceptionally detailed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusionary criteria. An agent would have to infer from the resource name that it's for listing feedback votes, but no explicit usage advice is given.

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