github_issues_list

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action and scope, omitting details like pagination (relevant per schema), rate limits, or that the filter parameter changes results. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 a single sentence, very concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It could be improved by adding a brief note on parameters or alternatives while maintaining conciseness.

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 tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the scope of results, how to use filters, or what the output looks like. More context is needed 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% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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', resource 'issues', and the scope 'assigned to the authenticated user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_issues_list_for_authenticated_user, which likely returns all issues. However, it does not mention that the filter parameter can return other types of issues, slightly narrowing the perceived purpose.

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 provides no usage guidelines. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternative issue listing tools (e.g., list_for_repo, list_for_org). Agents have no guidance on tool selection based on context.

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