list_issue_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the semantic scope (discussions + comments + activity log) that 'notes' covers, but omits the read-only character, pagination behavior, auth needs, and return shape; the required page/per_page params make pagination disclosure relevant.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately compact for a listing tool. It is arguably too terse given the six required parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool with six required params, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It leaves pagination semantics, ordering behavior, and the response structure unexplained, which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate, yet it names none of the six parameters. It adds no meaning for sort, order_by, page, or per_page beyond what the partially-documented schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus the resource (issue notes) and disambiguates what 'notes' means by enumerating discussions, comments, and activity log. It distinguishes itself reasonably from create_issue_note, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_issue, which may also surface notes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_issue or create_issue_note. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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