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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (given 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or parameter meanings. For a list tool with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly, especially with sibling tools like 'search_issues' that might overlap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only vaguely mentions 'filtering options' without detailing what those filters are (e.g., labels, state, sorting). The 9 parameters (including complex ones like arrays and enums) are not addressed, leaving their purposes unclear beyond what the bare schema 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 action ('List issues') and resource ('in a GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'filtering options' which hints at capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue'. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't specify what makes this tool distinct from other issue-related tools in the sibling list. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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