github.list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions filtering by state and labels, but fails to disclose pagination (page, per_page), sorting (sort), default state 'open', or that it returns a list. These are important for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key filtering capability. No filler or redundant information.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, a short sentence is insufficient. It omits pagination behavior, sorting options, default states, and label formatting, making it incomplete for reliable use by an agent.

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. It explains only 'state' and 'labels' (as filters), but leaves page, per_page, sort, owner, and repo without additional semantic context. The schema itself only provides titles and defaults, so many parameters remain underspecified.

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 tool's function: 'List issues in a repository'. The verb 'list' and resource 'issues' distinguish it from sibling tools like github.get_issue (singular) and github.list_prs (pull requests), and the mention of filtering by state and labels adds 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 implies usage for listing issues with optional filtering, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as github.get_issue or github.list_prs. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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