Run issue graph liveness auto-recovery

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the authorization class ('board') and hints at an action ('run auto-recovery') but does not explain side effects, such as whether the recovery is synchronous or if it modifies state, beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the action and technical details. No extraneous information, but the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly.

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 and annotations, the description provides the operation and authorization class. However, it lacks context about the recovery process (e.g., whether it's asynchronous, what triggers it, or potential impacts), leaving the agent with only a high-level 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not mention the 'lookbackHours' parameter at all. The agent must rely solely on the schema's name and constraints, which may not be sufficient to understand its purpose (e.g., hours to look back for recovery candidates).

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 'Run issue graph liveness auto-recovery' and includes the HTTP method and path, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from its siblings (e.g., the similar named sibling is differentiated by the full path).

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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