list_assigned_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 does so thoroughly. It discloses that PRs are excluded, defines the exact output format for matches and empty results, specifies the 'ERROR:' prefix on failure, and guarantees the tool never raises. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose, exclusion, usage context, then return behavior. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, what it excludes, when to use it, what it returns, and how failures present. Nothing critical 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 schema already documents 'label' as 'Issue label to filter by', and the description adds only the context that the label applies to open issues and is used in the empty-result message. This is adequate but not additive beyond the schema.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('open GitHub issues carrying the given label'), and an important exclusion ('pull requests are excluded'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_issue or submit_pr without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to discover work before calling start_issue', giving a clear workflow context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases for every sibling, but the sequential relationship to start_issue is sufficient guidance for the primary use case.

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