list_issues_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that it lists issues, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort order, potential errors if the project is not found, or that it only retrieves a limited number of issues per page. The schema's default values are not referenced, leaving the agent without insight into the tool's operational traits.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the essential purpose without redundancy. This level of conciseness is appropriate for a straightforward list operation and earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Although the output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the description lacks context about usage scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., project existence), or the breadth of filtering capabilities. For a tool with ten optional parameters, the description should hint at the rich filtering options to guide the agent, but it remains minimal. Given the schema fills significant gaps, a score of 3 reflects adequacy without being comprehensive.

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%, so all 10 parameters are individually documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. According to the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes parameters, and this description does not enhance that understanding.

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 'List issues for a GitLab project' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (issues for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue_tool (single issue) or create_issue_tool (mutation) by specifying listing context, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage for listing issues but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project_tool or list_merge_requests_tool. It does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name and parameters.

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