list_project_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('以表格格式呈現' - in table format), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (only limit parameter), error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each sentence adds value: the purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return format. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool, though the title is null which slightly reduces structure.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the return format, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on behavior and results would improve 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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all three parameters in Chinese: 'project_id' (專案 ID), 'status_filter' with allowed values ('open', 'closed', 'all'), and 'limit' with default and max values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what's listed.

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 the tool's purpose as '列出專案的議題' (list project issues), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_my_issues' (personal issues) and 'search_issues' (search across projects) by focusing on a specific project. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'get_issue' (single issue retrieval).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_project_issues' over 'search_issues' (which might have broader filtering) or 'get_my_issues' (personal issues). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid project ID, or exclusions.

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