gitee_list_issues

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose the scope (e.g., all repos or just assigned issues), pagination behavior, or any side effects. The schema lists parameters, but the description adds no behavioral insights beyond the verb.

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?

Extremely concise, one sentence. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse for a tool with many siblings and parameters.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., gitee_list_repo_issues, gitee_search_issues), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how this tool fits into the workflow, what issues are returned (e.g., all issues the user is involved in or only those created by them), or prerequisites.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description 'List issues for the authenticated user' adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. No additional clarity provided.

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 it lists issues for the authenticated user, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like gitee_list_repo_issues or gitee_list_org_issues, leaving ambiguity about when to use this over alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other issue-listing siblings. There is no mention of context (e.g., this lists issues across repos for the user, while gitee_list_repo_issues targets a specific repo). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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