Search SonarQube issues

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

The description states the tool is 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose other behaviors such as pagination behavior (the schema has pageSize with default 100, but not described), error handling, or rate limits. This is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the lack of structure and additional information makes it less effective. For 12 parameters, more detail is needed while remaining concise.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, sorting options, or any constraints like required permissions. An agent has insufficient context to use this tool reliably.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 12 parameters. The description also offers no explanation of parameters like projectKey, severities, or logic for filtering. Without any semantic help, an agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with proper parameters.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'SonarQube issues', and notes it's read-only against a specific API endpoint. This adequately explains the tool's basic function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sonar_fix_plan' or 'search_sonar_projects', but the name itself is sufficiently specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention cases where another tool like 'get_sonar_issue_context' might be more appropriate. With no usage notes or exclusions, an agent lacks context for correct selection.

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