get_open_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that pull requests are excluded, which is a non-obvvious selection behavior. It does not mention pagination, limit handling, sorting, or access requirements, though the output schema covers return shape.

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?

A single concise sentence front-loads the operation and then adds the important pull-request exclusion. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only issue-listing tool with an output schema present, the description identifies the resource, scope, and exclusion that matter most. The main gaps are explicit usage boundaries and parameter-level documentation, which are already penalized in their respective dimensions.

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% and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the role of owner, repo, or limit beyond the schema titles/default. The parameter names are conventional enough to infer, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), resource ('open issues'), and scope ('for a GitHub repository'), plus a critical qualifier ('excluding pull requests'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which cover repository info, commits, and workflow runs rather than issues.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need open issues for a GitHub repository. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives such as get_recent_commits are named, so an agent must infer the decision boundary.

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