list_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the resource-scoping note and says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether results are scoped to open issues by default. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core purpose and the key exclusion appear immediately. It is arguably over-trimmed given that nothing else is said, but it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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 four-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. Missing is anything about pagination (per_page max 100, default 20) or filtering semantics for state, which an agent must infer from the raw schema.

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 50%: owner and repo are documented in the schema, but state and per_page carry no descriptions at all. The description contributes nothing about these parameters — not what values state accepts, not that per_page is capped at 100, not the default page size — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List issues") plus an explicit scope exclusion ("not pull requests") that separates it from list_pull_requests and get_pull_request. It does not distinguish itself from search_issues, which is the closest remaining sibling, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells the agent this is the place to enumerate issues rather than PRs, but gives no guidance on when to prefer search_issues or get_issue instead, and no stated prerequisites. The parenthetical exclusion is a partial when-not, not a full routing rule.

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