listIssues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention pagination, return format, authentication, rate limits, or the purpose of the 'relays' parameter. The description is purely syntactic and adds no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation, though it lacks any additional structured guidance that could aid the agent.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values, filtering behavior, and the role of 'relays'. It does none of this, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand invocation outcomes.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself mentions no parameters. The schema already explains labels, repoId, and ownerPubkey, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'relays' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 issues for a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getIssueById (single issue) and createIssue (creation), and is unambiguous about its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listPRs or getIssueById. The description merely states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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