github_list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read operation via 'List' but does not elaborate on permissions, pagination, or return value characteristics. The description is minimal but accurate, scoring adequately for a simple listing tool.

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 extremely concise: a single line header and three parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains zero unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or default behavior (e.g., state defaults to 'open' not mentioned in description). For a list endpoint, these omissions reduce completeness somewhat.

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%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It explains repo format ('owner/repo'), state options ('open, closed, all'), and labels as a filter requiring all labels. However, it incorrectly marks repo as required while the schema sets default null, creating a minor inconsistency. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'List issues for a repo.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_branches or github_list_pull_requests which list different GitHub resources. The parameter details further clarify the scope.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is implied for listing issues, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to sibling tools like github_search_issues (if exists). The usage context is only implicitly understood.

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