list_issue_blocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the pagination protocol (page start, limit cap, termination condition) and the directional relationship to list_issue_dependencies. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior (though 'List' implies it) or mention ordering/return format, leaving minor gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then pagination, then sibling comparison. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff. Excellent structure.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides essential operational details: pagination flow and directionality relative to a sibling tool. It lacks explicit mention of response format, but that is not critical given the simplicity. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and use the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds minimal extra parameter insight beyond mentioning page and limit in the pagination context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the issues that are BLOCKED BY this issue' with the phrase 'blocking dependents' adding clarity. It also distinguishes itself from its sibling tool by naming the reverse direction, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it tells the agent to use this tool for blocked-by relationships and explicitly names the alternative (list_issue_dependencies) for the opposite direction. It also gives concrete pagination instructions (1-based page, limit <= 100, keep paging until fewer than limit), which is highly actionable.

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