list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a limit of 100 issues and the return fields, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value (purpose, output format, requirements, alternative tool). No wasted words.

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 only two parameters, the description covers purpose, output format (JSON array with fields), limit (100 issues), and alternatives. Missing details like pagination, ordering, or potential error responses, but overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has only two parameters (owner, name) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions they are required but does not explain their meaning. Since the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal value beyond 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's purpose: to browse issues for a repository. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('issues'), distinguishes from sibling get_issue by noting it returns a summary list, and mentions the output format.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you need to browse issues or find issues to work on') and contrasts with get_issue for full details. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or other alternative tools beyond get_issue.

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