List Issues Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the description is not the sole carrier of the safety profile. It adds one behavioral fact beyond annotations and schema: the result set excludes pull requests. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default result ordering, or authentication requirements, so it adds modest value.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint is placed immediately after the action. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to serve as a standalone definition given the missing usage distinctions.

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?

An output schema exists, the annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents all six parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values or inputs. What remains missing is disambiguation from search_issues_tool and get_issue_tool, which a list tool sharing this namespace should ideally provide.

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 100%, with every parameter (page, repo, owner, state, labels, per_page) documented including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 for a GitHub repository') and explicitly carves out the scope ('pull requests excluded'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_pull_requests_tool. It stops short of naming or contrasting with search_issues_tool or get_issue_tool, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The parenthetical exclusion of pull requests hints at scope, but the description never says when to pick this over search_issues_tool (filtered search) or get_issue_tool (single issue fetch), so the agent must infer the choice from tool names alone.

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