list-issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List issues' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (likely, but not confirmed). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format, leaving gaps for a list operation with filtering and pagination parameters.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering (via 'from a project'), which is already covered by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 from a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), specifying the scope ('from a project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-issue' (singular) or 'list-sub-issues', but could be more specific about filtering capabilities versus other list tools (e.g., 'list-cycle-issues').

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-cycle-issues' or 'list-module-issues' is provided. The description implies usage for listing project issues but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names alone.

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