list_code_scanning_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses authentication requirements and provides a documentation link, but omits important behavioral traits such as pagination limits, default state filters, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. The docs link partially compensates but is not embedded context.

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 concise sentences: first states the core action, then a prerequisite and docs link. No fluff, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits pagination behavior, default filtering, and response format, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool beyond the bare purpose. The external docs link is not a substitute for inline 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 description coverage is only 56%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain sort, direction, page, per_page, or other undocumented parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gaps. The description is silent on parameter behavior, making this dimension weak.

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 the exact operation ('List code-scanning alerts') and the resource scope ('for a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_code_scanning_alert (single alert) or list_secret_scanning_alerts (different alert type).

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 concrete usage context by specifying required PAT scopes for private and public repositories, which helps the agent know prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_code_scanning_alert or list_secret_scanning_alerts, so no exclusion guidance is given.

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