list_issues

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: server-side pagination to completion, a hard refusal above 2000 matches, and the exact row columns returned. These are operational traits the annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with scope, then return shape, then constraints and routing. No filler; every clause carries information (cap, pagination, columns, alternative tool).

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description clarifies what the rows actually contain and the failure mode at 2000 matches. Combined with annotations and schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 75%, so the schema already documents most params. The description enumerates the narrowing filters, which adds modest signal about which params constrain the result set, but does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Every ticket matching the filters, in one call') and distinguishes itself from get_issue by noting rows hold no description excerpts. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from the sibling detail tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'read a ticket with get_issue before acting on it', and 'narrow with open, state, cycle, project, assignee_is_me or delegate_is_me' when matches exceed 2000. Also names the use case 'when a task covers a set, work every row'. Covers when-to-use, when-not (too broad), and the alternative.

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