github_issues_list_dependencies_blocking

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, that it returns paginated results, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic listing action. Minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. It achieves conciseness but could slightly expand on scope or pagination without becoming verbose.

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 simple list tool with comprehensive schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about what constitutes a 'dependency', the return format, and pagination behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional value beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 'List dependencies an issue is blocking' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (dependencies an issue is blocking). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocked_by' through the directional preposition 'blocking' vs 'blocked by'. However, it could mention the scope (owner, repo, issue_number) for clarity.

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 sibling 'github_issues_list_dependencies_blocked_by'. The description does not include any context about issue dependencies or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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