github_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the filtering, sorting, and limit behavior but does not disclose return format, pagination details, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is mitigated, but the agent is left without information about the response structure.

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 efficiently structured as a docstring with a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args list. Every line provides value, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.

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 (8 params, no annotations, an output schema exists), the description covers the essential usage aspects. It explains all parameters and their interactions. The existence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. It could mention the requirement for an active session, but session_name is already a parameter, and sibling github_connect handles that.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, with no descriptions in the input schema. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including allowed values (open/closed/all for state, created/updated/comments for sort), format (comma-separated labels), and defaults. This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning 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 begins with 'List issues in a repository with optional filters', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_issue (singular) and github_search_issues (search vs list).

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 clearly states the tool lists issues in a specific repository with optional filters, providing context for when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using github_search_issues for cross-repo searches.

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