github_list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List ... filtered by state,' which implies read-only behavior but does not disclose pagination, authentication needs, ordering, or return structure. The filter mention is a minor behavioral trait, but significant gaps remain for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return value details (e.g., array of issue objects) and pagination behavior (e.g., limit default), making it merely adequate rather than complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions, meeting the 100% coverage baseline. The description adds contextual meaning to the 'state' parameter by explicitly mentioning filtering by state, but does not elaborate on owner, repo, or limit beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'issues on a repository,' with an explicit scope 'filtered by state.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_requests or get_issue, and the verb+resource pattern is specific.

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 by stating the function — if you need to list issues, this tool does that. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., use get_issue for a single issue) or exclusions. The implication is present but not expanded.

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