listIssues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'issue summaries' (not full details) and mentions pagination, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose default sort order, default limit, or how custom field filters interact with other filters. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key capabilities, then adds a concise routing instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core function (browsing issue summaries), key filters, sorting, pagination, and sibling differentiation. It could benefit from noting that it only returns summaries (not full details) and maybe a default limit, but these are minor given the output schema and annotations.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context that queryId is from listQueries, statusId can be 'open' or 'closed' (default), and customFieldFilters are in query-string form, which goes beyond the schema for those fields. However, several parameters (assignedToUserId, limit, offset) lack descriptions in both the schema and the description, leaving some gaps. The description adds value but not enough to fully compensate for the uncovered 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 a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('issue summaries') and immediately enumerates the key dimensions (filters, saved queries, custom-field filters, sorting, pagination). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming searchIssues (free text) and getIssue (complete context for one issue), so an agent can clearly tell this is the list/browse tool.

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 versus alternatives: use searchIssues when only free text is known, or getIssue for one known issue's complete context. This gives clear selection criteria, though it doesn't exhaustively list all sibling alternatives (e.g., getMyIssues), but the guidance provided is strong enough for this purpose.

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