list_errors

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'list errors' without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only safety, pagination limits, default sorting, or authentication requirements. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core function and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, default limit, or how filtering interacts with sorting. For a list tool with four parameters, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'filtering options' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's documented sort, limit, and status parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 action (list), resource (errors), and scope (in a project), and mentions filtering options. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like search_issues or list_error_events, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the basic function without any context, exclusions, or alternative tool references. It does not mention when to choose list_errors over search_issues or list_error_events.

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