gh_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the $GH_DEFAULT_REPO fallback behavior, which is useful, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, auth requirements, or the format of results. For a read/list tool this is partially adequate since it's clearly non-destructive from the name alone.

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 two short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides the fallback detail. Efficient and scannable.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the fallback behavior and filter capabilities but gives no sense of result ordering, whether it returns paginated results, or how label format interacts with the tool. Given the moderate complexity (5 params), a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns most recently updated first') would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions state, assignee, labels as filters, which mirrors the schema parameters. It does add the fallback note for repo, which overlaps with the schema's description but confirms the behavior.

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 states 'List GitHub issues' with specific filters (state, assignee, labels), which is a clear verb+resource purpose. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like gh_issue_view, gh_issue_create, gh_issue_edit as a list operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with gh_issue_view.

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 mentions filter capabilities and the repo fallback behavior, which gives some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like gh_issue_view, and provides no exclusions or guidance on limiting results beyond what the schema describes.

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