List issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping constraint that pull requests are excluded, but says nothing about pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or result volume for a 10-parameter search-style tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste; the scope constraint is front-loaded alongside the verb and resource. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits pagination expectations, return shape, and any mention of the available filters (state, labels, assignee, milestones) or how search behaves. With annotations covering only safety, the description leaves real gaps an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 70%, with state, assignee and created_by carrying no schema description, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Because coverage falls below the >80% threshold where the schema alone justifies a baseline 3, the description should have compensated for the undocumented filters but does not.

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 gives a specific verb ('List or search') and resource ('issues in a repository'), and the parenthetical scope qualifier '(pull requests excluded)' usefully disambiguates it from PR-related siblings like list_pull_requests. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling search_issues, so the agent cannot tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The only scope hint is the PR exclusion, which tells the agent what the tool does not cover but not when to prefer it over search_issues or get_issue. An agent is left to infer routing.

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