List Issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or any behavioral nuances. It adds no behavioral detail beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it sacrifices behavioral detail that would have justified a higher score.

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 the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the basic mechanics of listing and filtering. However, it omits usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and with zero annotations the overall context is thinner than ideal for an AI agent deciding when and how to invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered' adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to compensate for any coverage gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List issues' with a clear verb and resource, and adds 'optionally filtered' to signal filtering behavior. It is not quite a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling listing tools like list_tasks or list_reports, though the resource name makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about when filtering or pagination would be appropriate. The name implies its use case, but the description itself provides no explicit usage direction.

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