list_issues

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious behavior — that PRs are filtered out of the result set — but says nothing about pagination, default result count, ordering, or whether closed issues appear by default.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion caveat. Nothing redundant.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only documentation available, and it omits defaults, pagination behavior, and how the target repository is determined. That is not enough for an agent to call this reliably without experimentation.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for either: it does not state the default or maximum for limit, nor whether state defaults to open or what "all" includes. Both params are left for the agent to guess.

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") and adds a genuine disambiguation: pull requests are excluded, which separates it from the sibling list_pull_requests. The only softness is "the open repository" — it implies an ambient current-repo context rather than naming a repo parameter.

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 PR-exclusion sentence implicitly routes pull-request retrieval to list_pull_requests, but the tool never says when to choose this over create_issue or search_project_code, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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