list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses non-obvious behaviors: newest-first ordering and the filtering of pull requests returned by the GitHub issues endpoint. It does not discuss pagination, rate limits, or permissions, but the main gotcha is covered.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded and the important PR-filter caveat second. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

For a low-complexity list operation, the description plus fully documented input schema and existing output schema cover what an agent needs: target repository, filters, limits, and the key behavioral surprise that PRs are excluded. Nothing essential is missing.

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 does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the notion of 'repository', but the input schema already documents all four parameters clearly.

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 action and resource: 'List issues in a repository' with the sort order 'newest first'. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_issues, so it misses full sibling-distinguishing credit.

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 PR-filtering note implies a boundary ('Pull requests are filtered out') and gives useful context about what not to expect. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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