list_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds the 'effective status, blockers, claimability' context, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, defaults for archived issues, or any other non-obvious behavior. This is adequate but not enriching.

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?

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and delivers relevant specifics without waste.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, output schema), the description covers the core purpose but omits important operational details such as project_ref scoping, pagination defaults, and whether archived issues are excluded by default. The annotations and output schema reduce the burden, but this is not complete enough for an agent to make fully informed decisions on all variations.

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 only 29%, so the description carries some responsibility. It hints at filterable dimensions (effective_statuses, is_blocked, is_claimable) but does not elaborate on many other parameters like statuses, labels, or priorities, nor does it distinguish 'statuses' from 'effective_statuses'. This adds a bit of meaning but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 and filters issues, with specific mention of effective status, blockers, and claimability. This distinguishes it from single-issue retrieval (get_issue) and search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies use for listing/filtering issues, which is clear. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives like get_issue for single issues, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and sibling set.

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