list_issues

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds sorting by modification date and details on filtering/search, which are not in annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first introduces purpose, second specifies sorting, third enumerates filters and searches. Front-loaded and no冗余.

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?

Covers functionality, filters, sorting, and search. Missing output format details but acceptable given no output schema. Annotations provide safety context.

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 100%, but description adds value: explains parentIssue as listing children, titleSearch as case-insensitive substring, descriptionSearch as fulltext search. However, some parameters (status, component) lack additional context beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Query Huly issues with optional filters' and lists supported filters and searches. Differentiates from siblings like get_issue or create_issue by specifying list behavior and optional filters.

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?

Provides clear capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_issue for single issue). Usage is implied but lacks direct guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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