list_open_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the default scope is active issues and that results carry entity GUIDs, which is useful context. It stops short of describing pagination via cursor or result shape, so it goes slightly beyond the annotations but not richly.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and default scope, then the payoff for using it. Every sentence earns its place, though the line-wrapping is awkward and the second sentence could be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling listers, but for a 4-parameter optional-args read tool the definition is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: priority and only_open are documented in the schema, while cursor and account_id are not. The description adds nothing about these parameters beyond restating the default active-only behavior that only_open already encodes. Baseline 3 is fair given the schema carries all the specific parameter documentation.

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 and resource: lists alert issues, defaulting to currently active ones. It distinguishes itself from generic query tools like run_nrql by naming 'alert issues' specifically, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling listers such as list_alert_policies or get_recent_errors.

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?

It implies usage via 'the usual entry point for an on-call investigation,' which gives context for when to reach for it. However, it names no alternative and states no exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer that run_nrql or get_recent_errors are not the right first call. Implied usage only.

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