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. 'List' implies a read, but nothing is said about pagination, result limits, auth/scope requirements, or what happens when the repo is missing — significant gaps for a tool with zero 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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter qualifier second. Nothing is wasted, though it is under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a required provider enum undocumented, the description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It should at minimum explain provider selection and the default state behavior.

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 0% and there are 3 parameters. The description clarifies the state enum (open/closed/all) and implies repo, but leaves the required 'provider' parameter — with 21 enum values — entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot know it selects the source system. Partial compensation only.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (a repo's issues), which is enough to distinguish it from list_pull_requests or get_repository by resource type. It does not explicitly name siblings or scope boundaries, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 only notes that state is optional; it gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_pull_requests or get_repository, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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