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 scope are covered, and the description adds genuinely new context about where issues originate (report_issue or automatic creation). It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how large the result set can be, which matters for an open-world list.

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 clauses with no filler, and the resource identity plus provenance come first. The status enumeration is compressed into a single line, though the leading fragment lacks a verb, making it read more like a label than a description.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description plus the value set is nearly sufficient. It still omits the default filter behavior, result ordering/paging, and any indication of what an issue record contains, which an agent listing issues would reasonably want.

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 0% — the 'status' property has no description and no enum — so the description is the only place the accepted values (open, in-progress, needs-human, fixed, wontfix, duplicate, all) are documented, which is substantial added value. It does not restate the schema's default of 'open' or explain what 'all' returns, leaving a small 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 names the resource (issues) and its provenance (filed via report_issue or automatically), which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling report_issue (which files them) and from unrelated siblings like list_jobs. It never states the verb 'list' explicitly, relying on the tool name to carry that, so it falls short of a full verb+resource statement.

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 implicit pairing with report_issue hints at where issues come from, and the status list implies the tool can be filtered, but there is no explicit 'use when you need X' or 'do not use for Y' guidance. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to report_issue.

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