List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: PRs are silently excluded and truncation means the returned count can fall short of `limit`. It stops short of covering auth requirements or rate limits, but the caveats it does give are the ones an agent would otherwise trip on.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the two behavioral caveats that matter. Nothing repetitive or wasted.

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 present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining substance an agent needs — scope, PR omission, first-page truncation — is all present, leaving only minor gaps like sorting and auth.

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, but the description adds real meaning to `limit` by explaining that the first-page-only behavior can make the effective result count lower than the requested limit — something the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List issues") plus an explicit scope ("for one repository"). The note that pull requests are omitted effectively separates it from the sibling list_open_pull_requests and summarize_pull_request tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns this returns only the first page and may return fewer than `limit`, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to get more results, and no routing guidance relative to get_repo_activity or the PR siblings.

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