Listar issues de GitHub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the tool 'obtiene' issues. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, how pagination works beyond the per_page parameter, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a usage trigger. It is efficient, though 'consultar, revisar o listar' is slightly redundant and the state options restate the schema enum.

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?

For a four-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic usage. It omits behavioral details such as read-only safety and pagination expectations, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description hints at filtering by state ('abiertos, cerrados o todos') but adds no format, default, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Obtiene los issues de un repositorio de GitHub.' It clearly distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings like create-issue, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Usa este tool cuando el usuario quiera consultar, revisar o listar issues abiertos, cerrados o todos.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it offers no when-not conditions or explicit alternatives such as create-issue.

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