list_repository_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies a scoped read operation ('open issues' and 'excluding pull requests'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention auth, pagination, or error behavior, though an output schema is present.

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 purpose sentence followed by a minimal Args block. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, and parameter meanings. The only minor gap is not mentioning the output format explicitly, but the output schema covers 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 input schema provides only names and types for owner and repo, but the description's Args section explains that owner is the repository owner and repo is the repository name. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 lists open issues for a repository and explicitly excludes pull requests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and get_issue, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'excluding pull requests' provides a clear boundary for when not to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (list_pull_requests) for that case. This gives clear context and an exclusion, but stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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