list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, default behavior when no filters are applied, or any side effects. The description only states that it lists issues and filters, offering little beyond the obvious.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then lists filter options. There is no wasted wording or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., list of issue objects) or any response details. It also does not clarify behavior with no filters or mixed filter usage. However, as a read-only list tool, the description provides adequate basics but leaves room for improvement.

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 20% (only workspace_id has a description). The description adds meaning for status, assignee, and project by naming them as filter dimensions, but it does not explain assignee_type or how filters combine. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves several parameters undefined.

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's action ('List issues (tasks)') and identifies the resource. It also specifies the filterable dimensions (status, assignee, project), which distinguishes it from related issue tools like get_issue or create_issue. The purpose is unambiguous and not merely a restatement of the name.

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 such as search_issues. It does not mention exclusions, limitations, or recommended use cases. The only implied context is that it lists issues, which is minimal guidance.

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