gh_list_issues

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavior context by noting state filtering and comma-separated label filtering, but does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or other side effects beyond the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds parameter-relevant value, and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema fields.

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 an output schema and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, it lacks an explicit mention of pagination/per_page semantics and does not help distinguish this list operation from the multiple related list/search siblings, making the setup marginally adequate for a moderately parameterized tool.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates for some parameters by explaining state allowed values and label format. However, per_page is left undocumented, and owner/repo are only implicitly obvious from the schema titles; overall the description only adds meaningful semantics for two of five parameters.

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 issues in a repository', which is a specific action with a clear resource and repository scope. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like gh_get_issue (single issue) and gh_search_issues (searching across repos).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as gh_search_issues or gh_get_issue. The description simply lists the tool's function and a couple of filter parameters without explaining the best-fit use case.

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