list_issues

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which implies a read operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, ordering, or what the returned data represents. It also doesn't mention that the default query is 'is:unresolved' (only the schema does).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'List Sentry issues', and provides a concise, relevant example. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with only optional parameters, this description is minimally viable. However, it doesn't address return value shape, ordering, or whether it returns full issue details or summaries. Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools that retrieve single issues, a bit more context about the list result 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional filters' and example query formats, but the schema already documents each parameter with the same examples. Thus the description adds no meaningful semantic value 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 states 'List Sentry issues' with a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_issue', but the verb 'list' and resource 'issues' are enough to differentiate in most contexts.

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 example search queries ('is:unresolved', 'level:error'), which give practical usage guidance for filters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_issue' or 'list_projects', nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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