list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results are trimmed to specific fields and that recency matters, but it omits the requirement for siteApiToken, rate-limit behavior, and pagination semantics. For a read-only list tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then usage cue. No sentence is redundant; the parenthetical field list is justified because no output schema exists.

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, listing the returned fields is valuable and the description covers purpose and recency well. It is slightly incomplete on auth (siteApiToken) and relationship to sibling tools, but the 80% schema coverage fills most parameter gaps.

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 coverage is 80%, with descriptions for limit, types, minutes, and severity; siteApiToken is required but undocumented. The description adds "recent" context and says results are for a site, but does not explain parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List recent runtime issues") plus the source (SiteLint auditor) and scope (for a site). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_issue or capture_page_issues; the "go find what I just hit" phrasing only implies the distinction.

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?

"This is the 'go find what I just hit' call" gives an implied usage scenario for recent runtime issues. It does not state when to use this versus get_issue for a single issue or capture_page_issues to generate issues, nor does it provide explicit exclusions.

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