list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses assignee_id magic value ('me'), state_type enum values, query full-text search, filter as raw object, and order_by defaults. However, it omits pagination behavior (after, first) and auth requirements, leaving gaps in agent understanding.

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, using a bullet-like structure for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous text. Could be slightly more organized with explicit sections, but it is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to explain returns), the description lacks key context: pagination semantics, when to use list_issues vs search_issues, and handling of unlisted parameters. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete.

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 adds meaning for 5 of 11 parameters (assignee_id, state_type, query, filter, order_by), but leaves 6 parameters (after, first, team_id, workspace, project_id, state_name) completely unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient for a tool with many 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 clearly states 'List issues with common filters,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from single-issue retrieval tools like get_issue, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_issues, though the emphasis on 'common filters' implies a basic listing purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_issues. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workspace context) or when not to use it. The description assumes the agent knows when to pick this over sibling tools.

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