list_active_issues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value with the known N-CENTRAL BUG about null fields and the endpoint limitation. This provides context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing critical details about the bug and endpoint restrictions. Every sentence earns its place; no extraneous content.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, output formats, a known bug, and a usage constraint. It lacks a definition of 'active issues' but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already thoroughly describes both parameters. The description's note about 'Returns CSV or JSON' is redundant, and the bug information pertains to output fields rather than parameters. Thus, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List active issues for an organization unit,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which list other entities like devices or users, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that 'the underlying endpoint only supports customer/site org units, not service-orgs,' providing a clear constraint on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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