list_new_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it loops each repo, drops pull requests, and merges results newest-first. This gives good insight into internal behavior, though rate limiting or pagination details are missing.

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 concise and well-structured: two short paragraphs with the core purpose upfront. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameters adequately. It is complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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%, so the description adds only marginal value. It describes 'repos' as a subset of the allowlist, slightly beyond schema, but does not elaborate on 'days' beyond what's in schema.

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 'list' and resource 'new OPEN issues across the watch-list', explicitly excluding pull requests. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_claim_status and get_repo_context by focusing on listing new issues across watched repos.

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 indicates it's the single call for what's new across watched repos, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tools are different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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