list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List GitHub issues' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted verbiage, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 0%, so parameters like 'status', 'milestone', 'labels', 'assignee', 'sort', 'direction', and 'limit' are completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'List GitHub issues' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub issues'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (singular) or 'list_project_items', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_issue' (for single issues), 'list_project_items' (for project-specific items), and 'triage_all_issues' (for triaging), the description offers no context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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