list_issues

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention pagination behavior (per_page, max_pages), default expansions, or any limitations such as maximum page count. The API endpoint reference is minimal and does not add 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, front-loaded with the purpose, and has no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from additional structure to convey usage nuances.

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?

The tool has four parameters including pagination controls, but the description does not explain these or any usage context. It also does not mention that output is paginated or how the endpoint works. Given no annotations and a minimal schema, this is inadequate for a list operation with multiple configuration options.

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 provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (expand, per_page, max_pages, project_id). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings entirely to the schema field titles and types.

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 of a project, with a clear verb ('Lista') and resource ('issues'). It distinguishes from siblings like retrieve_issue (singular) and list_issue_children (child issues), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 list_issue_children or retrieve_issue. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites.

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