list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits — default limit of 25, hard cap of 100, and the default status filter of 'open' — but says nothing about authentication, ordering, or pagination behavior, which matters for a listing endpoint.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then gives a tight per-parameter list with no filler. The 'Args:' block is somewhat redundant in that it restates parameter names already visible in the schema, but the added value per line is high.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and all input parameters are covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any comparative routing versus sibling list/search tools, plus no note on result ordering or pagination.

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 fully compensates: it documents all five parameters, including accepted status_id values ('open'/'closed'/'*'/numeric ID), the 'me' shorthand for assigned_to_id, partial-match semantics for subject, and the limit default/max. This is meaning an agent could not derive from the bare 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('チケット一覧を返す' — returns a list of tickets) with the filtering scope implied by the arg list. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings such as 'search' or 'get_issue', so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to alternatives like 'search' or 'get_issue' for single-ticket lookups. The only usage hints are implicit parameter defaults (e.g. omitting project_id means all projects).

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