list_github_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation. It only lists state options, which is more parameter semantics than behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with necessary parameter details, making it easy to parse and high in information density.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key parameters sufficiently. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral disclaimers (e.g., pagination, read-only confirmation) slightly reduces completeness, though the output schema fills in return-value details.

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 compensates by explaining the repo_name format ('owner/repo') and the valid state values ('open', 'closed', 'all'). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, although it does not note the default state (open) which is available in 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists issues for a given repository, using a specific verb and resource. It provides the repo format and accepted state values, distinguishing it from the sibling list_github_pull_requests which handles pull requests.

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 when you need to list issues for a specific repository, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The example format and state options give context, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is made.

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