list_feature_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List all' implies a non-mutating, unfiltered read, which is useful, but it says nothing about who can see the requests, ordering, volume/pagination, or whether 'submitted' excludes drafts or closed items.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the scope qualifier ('all submitted') front and center and no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a zero-argument call, though it could have used one more clause to route the agent to the sibling.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, and it does not describe what a returned feature request contains (id, title, status, votes, author) or the result shape. For a listing tool that is the key missing piece.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case; there is no parameter meaning to document and the description correctly implies no filtering options exist.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all submitted feature requests' tells the agent exactly what it retrieves and that no filtering is applied. It does not, however, distinguish itself from its sibling request_feature (the write counterpart) or state how results relate to that tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The obvious alternative, request_feature (the sibling that submits a request), is never mentioned, so the agent must infer that this is the read side of that pair.

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