listOpenIssues

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

The description implies a read-only operation but discloses no behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or return format. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide this context.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description still omits important context such as pagination behavior, sorting, filtering, and return value structure. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke and interpret the result without additional information.

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 0% (no description for the 'repo' parameter). The description only vaguely confirms 'repo' refers to a repository, but does not specify expected format (e.g., 'owner/name' or URL) or provide examples, so it does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('open issues') scoped to 'a repository', which differentiates it from sibling tools like getRepoInfo and createIssueSummary.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and lacks contextual cues, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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