issue_list

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'list' with filters. Does not mention pagination (limit parameter), authentication, read-only nature, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

One sentence, very concise. However, given 10 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief and could be more informative without being overly long. Balance is acceptable but not optimal.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very incomplete. It fails to explain return values, pagination, filtering behavior, or required permissions. Leaves major gaps for an AI agent.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% coverage; description mentions only 'label and assignment filters' (labels, assignee). Other critical params (state, sort, limit, repo) are unexplained. Adds little value beyond parameter names.

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 in a repo with filters (verb+resource+scope). The word 'generic' is slightly vague but overall purpose is clear. It distinguishes from other issue tools like issue_get or issue_create.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., issue_get for single issue, or issue_comments_list for comments). Missing context about prerequisites or use cases.

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