list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields and the definition of an issue, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. Given it is a list operation, the behavior is mostly inferable, but some explicit transparency about side effects or limitations is missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value (purpose and output characteristics). It is concise, readable, and avoids fluff.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview: what it does, what an issue is, and what fields are returned. It lacks explicit mention of pagination defaults or sorting, but these are covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for most usage scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond grouping them as 'optional filters'. It does list return fields, which are not part of parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List issues in an organization with optional filters', using a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies what an issue is ('unique error grouped by fingerprint') and lists returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue and list_issue_events.

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 gives clear context: this tool lists issues in an org, with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is evident from the phrasing. The project parameter references list_projects for IDs, providing some cross-tool guidance.

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