github_issues_list_for_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that this is non-destructive. It also fails to mention pagination behavior, return format, or any limitations. For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, more behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise (three words) and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful. While it could benefit from a bit more context, it avoids verbosity and is easy to parse.

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's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any edge cases. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and name to understand usage, which is insufficient for a well-informed selection.

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 the baseline is 3. The description 'List repository issues' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The schema's parameter descriptions are already thorough, so the description does not need to compensate. However, it does not provide any overarching context for parameters.

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 repository issues' uses a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is scoped to a particular repository (owner/repo required by the schema), the name and required parameters make this clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `github_issues_list_for_org` or `github_issues_list_for_authenticated_user` which cover different scopes.

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. There are sibling tools for listing issues at different scopes (org, authenticated user, global), but no explicit context or exclusions are given to help an agent choose the correct one.

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