GitHub List Issues

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

No annotations exist, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the action. It does not mention pagination (per_page), error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The schema provides some defaults but the description itself is silent on behavior.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient for reading. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it less effective. It is not overly verbose but could be more informative without length increase.

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 and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, ordering, or error responses. The agent lacks critical context for using the tool effectively.

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?

The description only implies owner and repo parameters via 'for a given repository'. It does not explain state or per_page semantics. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond what the schema structure provides.

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 for a repository, with the verb 'lists' and resource 'issues'. However, it specifies 'open issues' as default, which is accurate but may mislead if the state parameter overrides it. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating a read operation on issues, unlike create or pull request tools.

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_request or other issue-related tools. The sibling tools list is given but lacks explicit usage context.

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