list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '取得する' signals a read-only retrieval operation and the filterable behavior is disclosed, but there is no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or return format. For a simple list operation this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded Japanese sentence that states the operation and enumerates all filter parameters. There is no waste, and the core purpose appears immediately.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the purpose and filterability. It omits context such as the return shape, behavior when no filters are supplied, and how it relates to get_issue. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including limit's maximum of 100 and the special values for status_id and assigned_to_id. The description merely lists the parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'チケット一覧を取得する' (retrieve a list of tickets), so an agent knows it fetches multiple issues. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_issue, update_issue, or create_issue, but the list-vs-single/mutation contrast is inferable from the naming and wording.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a list of tickets is needed, with optional filters. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer get_issue for a single ticket, so the usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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