team_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic behavior (listing issues with label, optional project filter) but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or limits beyond the per_page max.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-like list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no redundant words.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all parameters adequately. It could mention that results are paginated, but the per_page parameter implies this. Overall, it provides sufficient context for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds complete parameter semantics: explains each parameter (label, state, project_path, per_page) with defaults and examples (e.g., 'group/project' for project_path), fully compensating for the schema 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?

The description clearly states the action (List issues) and the resource (issues with a specific team label), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_issues (general) and my_issues (personal) by specifying the team label filter.

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 usage for team-labeled issues but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use it.

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