seerr_list_issue

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

Although annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds no meaningful behavioral context. It says 'all issues' but the schema's default filter='open' indicates it actually returns open issues by default, which is misleading. Pagination and filtering behavior are not disclosed.

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 one-sentence description is brief but under-specified. It provides no useful information beyond a vague action, earning no value for its brevity. It is not concise—it is incomplete.

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?

With an output schema, five parameters, and a large sibling list including issue-related tools, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain pagination, filtering, or the distinction from similar tools, leaving the agent unable to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It does not mention skip, take, sort, filter, or requested_by, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of these parameters.

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 'Get all issues' names a verb and resource, but 'all' is misleading given the default filter='open' and pagination parameters (skip, take). It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like seerr_list_issue_count (counts issues) or seerr_get_issue (single issue).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of pagination, filtering, or related tools such as seerr_list_issue_count or seerr_get_issue. The description gives no context for selection.

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