list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only list operation, but it says nothing about default state filtering, pagination, authentication, response contents, or access limitations. The description provides little behavioral context beyond what the name already implies.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the core target is accurately fronted. It is concise and easy to parse, though it lacks peripheral details that would make it more informative.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much implicit. It does not explain response behavior, default state behavior, or how this listing interacts with discussion. The agent can invoke the tool based on the schema, but not confidently understand the full behavior from the description alone.

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 the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. The phrase 'de um repositório' loosely aligns with owner and repo, but the description does not clarify their meaning or relation, and it entirely omits state semantics.

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 a clear action, 'list', and a clear resource, 'issues', scoped to a repository. This makes the tool's basic purpose understandable and distinguishes it functionally from sibling tools like list_repos or create_issue. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives or mention filtering behavior.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_repos, search_code, or create_issue. There are no preconditions or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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