list_issue_notes

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

The description only implies a read operation ('Fetch') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds minimal value.

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, but it omits critical details about parameters and usage. It is appropriately sized but under-specifies the tool's functionality.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with no descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to cover fundamental aspects like required parameters, pagination, or sorting, making it inadequate for effective use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention any parameters, such as required 'issue_iid' and 'project_id' or optional pagination and sorting fields. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 tool fetches 'all comments and system notes for a GitLab issue', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_issue_discussions', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'list_issue_discussions'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage conditions or exclusions.

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