github_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or response format. It only states the basic action without deeper context.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description misses mentioning required parameters, pagination via per_page, and sort options. The incorrect claim about keyword search further detracts from 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?

The description inaccurately mentions 'keyword search' which is not a parameter in the schema. While it lists state, label, and assignee, the incorrect addition reduces its value. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description introduces misinformation.

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 and filters issues in a GitHub repository, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_issue by its listing and filtering functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention contexts where it should not be used. It lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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