List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the sort order (highest impact first), the inclusion of a one-line AI summary when present, and a fallback data source when the inbox is unavailable. It stops short of documenting pagination or the limit parameter's effect.

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 tight sentences with the 'Read-only' qualifier front-loaded and the core purpose immediately following. The fallback clause is placed last, which is correct emphasis. Nothing is redundant, though the embedded clause listing sources makes the first sentence slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right work of summarizing returned content (issues with AI summaries, impact-ordered) and noting the fallback source. Given six parameters with one required, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though return cardinality and pagination are unaddressed.

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 67%, so several parameters (limit, source, severity) are already documented structurally. The description reinforces the default open-status filter implicitly ('open issues') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 3 when the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Open issues for a project from the issue inbox') and qualifies the scope ('errors real users hit in production and findings from tests and scans'). It implicitly differentiates from the raw-findings sibling by describing an aggregated, prioritized inbox view, but never names list_findings explicitly, so sibling routing is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('open issues... from the issue inbox') but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings like list_findings or get_issue. The one routing hint is the fallback behavior on inbox-less servers, which addresses environment rather than task selection.

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