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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it decodes the terminal status values (pr_opened, needs_human, failed) and their meanings, and clarifies the repoAttachmentId format. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping it out of the top tier.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parenthetical status definitions and the follow-up pointer. It is a bit dense but each clause adds usable information, so little is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully explains the return shape (one row per issue with terminal statuses) and the diagnostics follow-up path. It is nearly complete, lacking only ordering/pagination details an agent might want.

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 100% with a single parameter whose schema description already states it is not an owner/repo string. The description's identical clarification adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single param applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (issue-triage run history) with clear scope (one attached repo, one row per auto-triaged issue). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_triage_diagnostics without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_triage_diagnostics for follow-up diagnostics, which implies when this listing tool is the entry point. It does not, however, state when-not to use it or contrast with sibling listing tools such as list_repos, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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