github_issues_list_sub_issues

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 fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, that results may be paginated (though implied by `per_page` and `page` parameters), or any rate-limiting considerations. The description is too sparse to provide meaningful 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 extremely concise (2 words), which is efficient but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It does not front-load critical information; it simply restates the tool name. While brevity is valued, it should not sacrifice necessary context.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., a list of sub-issues, their properties, pagination details). It does not. The description is too minimal to be considered complete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context.

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% (each parameter has a description), but those descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'owner' for owner, 'issue_number' for issue_number). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, high schema coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 sub-issues' clearly indicates the tool's action (list) and resource (sub-issues). It distinguishes from siblings like `github_issues_list` which lists issues at a repo level. However, it could be more specific by mentioning that it lists sub-issues of a given parent issue, which is implied by the `issue_number` parameter.

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 alternatives like `github_issues_list` or `github_issues_add_sub_issue`. The description lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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