github_issues_list_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only states 'List...issues' without mentioning pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. The schema hints at pagination via parameters, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 that efficiently states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be more informative 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (including pagination) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits key context like response structure, default sorting, or the fact that results are paginated. The schema compensates partially, but the description fails to provide a complete picture 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 detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not improve parameter understanding.

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 tool lists issues assigned to the authenticated user, using specific verb and resource with a scope constraint, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_issues_list and github_issues_list_for_repo.

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 (e.g., github_issues_list_for_repo or github_issues_list_for_org). It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool recommendations.

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