List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the PR exclusion; it says nothing about default state being 'open', sort order, or pagination behavior, which matter for interpreting 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the most surprising constraint (PRs excluded) placed parenthetically right after the core statement. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and only 63% schema description coverage, the description could carry more: defaults (state=open, limit=20, sort=created, desc) and pagination via offset are unstated. It is adequate but leaves the agent to read the schema to avoid surprising results.

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 coverage is 63%, so the schema documents several parameters (owner, repo, limit, offset, labels). The description mentions only state and labels, adding no meaning beyond the enum names and the schema's own 'Must have ALL of these labels'. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List issues in a repository') and adds a meaningful scope clarification: pull requests are excluded. That distinguishes it from list_pull_requests without opening a schema, though it doesn't contrast with search_issues_and_prs, which is the closer alternative.

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?

Says it can filter by state and labels, which implies a browsing use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus search_issues_and_prs or list_pull_requests. An agent must infer that this is the unfiltered/browse path and search_issues_and_prs is the search path.

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