list_open_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it simply restates the tool name and mentions a label filter, without disclosing read-only behavior, pagination, default limits, authentication requirements, or sorting. It adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 highly concise, using six words to convey the core action and an optional modifier. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not mention the required repository parameter, the structure of returned data, pagination behavior, or any limits. For a tool with a required parameter and zero schema/annotation support, this is a significant completeness gap.

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%, and the description only explains the optional label parameter ('optionally filtered by label'). The required owner_repo parameter is not explained at all, including its expected format (e.g., 'owner/repo'). The label mention adds some value, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 open issues') and an optional filter (by label), which identifies the resource and operation. It does not explicitly mention 'for a repository,' but the required owner_repo parameter and sibling tool names (e.g., list_pull_requests) make the repository context implicit. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by focusing on issues.

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_repos, list_pull_requests, or get_repo_info. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferable. The only hint is the 'open issues' scope, but no explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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