gitee_list_org_issues

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List issues', omitting details on pagination, default state, filtering behavior, or any side effects. The tool is likely a read operation, but that is not stated.

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 only one sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance. It does not waste words, but it also fails to provide helpful elaboration.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns, pagination, or filtering defaults. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 input schema documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'issues in an organization', but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitee_list_issues or gitee_list_user_issues, which could also list issues. The context is vague.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other issue-listing siblings (e.g., gitee_list_issues, gitee_list_user_issues). The description lacks any context for selection.

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