list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'max 100' for the limit parameter, which is useful, but doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though the initial 'Returns a list of issues' could be more specific. The parameter documentation is clear and well-organized.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does provide some parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in usage guidance and behavioral transparency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable parameter semantics that aren't in the schema. It explains what each parameter does (e.g., 'all projects if omitted' for project_id, 'open/closed/*' for status_id, 'max 100' for limit) and adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully document all parameter behaviors (like what 'null' means for each parameter).

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 'Returns a list of issues' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_issues_full' or 'list_issues_with_journals'. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_issues_full' or 'list_issues_with_journals'. The description only lists parameters without context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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