list_issues

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states that it returns specific fields and uses optional filters, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior beyond a limit parameter, sorting defaults, or authentication requirements.

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 at three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, and includes practical usage guidance. No redundant information.

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 7 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description lacks details on filter behavior (exact match vs partial), default sorting, pagination offset, error handling, and what happens with no results. Incomplete for a filtering tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filters' but does not explain the individual parameters (queue, status, assignee, etc.), their expected formats, or how multiple filters combine.

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 Tracker issues with optional filters, providing a specific verb and resource. It also specifies returned fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search tools like search_issues, which also list issues with filters.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when user asks to show, find, list, or check issues') and advises calling it before update_issue or add_comment when lacking an issue key. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or exclusions.

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