github_issues_list_dependencies_blocked_by

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and does not mention pagination (despite per_page/page parameters), read-only nature, authentication requirements, or output format. This omission limits the agent's ability to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the output contains (e.g., list of issue numbers or full issue objects), how pagination works, or any rate limiting considerations. The agent would need to infer behavior from schema alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal parameter descriptions (e.g., 'owner' described as 'owner'). It does not explain the relationship between parameters or the concept of 'dependencies' in this context.

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 'List dependencies an issue is blocked by' clearly states the action (list) and resource (dependencies blocked by an issue). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocking', which lists dependencies that an issue blocks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or contrast with other issue-related tools like list_dependencies_blocking. The sibling tool names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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