list_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the 'allowed repository' scoping constraint, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like default state filtering, pagination limits, or what fields are returned in the list.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It's appropriately concise for a simple listing tool. It could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward list tool with readOnly annotations. It covers the primary purpose but leaves gaps: no mention of default filtering (state=open, limit=30), no description of the 'all' state option, and no note on the 'allowed repository' permission nuance beyond the one phrase. Given the 5-parameter schema and no output schema, slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 low at 20%, with only the 'repository' parameter described ('Repository in owner/name format'). The description adds minimal parameter meaning—it doesn't explain the 'state' enum values, the 'limit' range, or the 'hostname' parameter. With 5 parameters and only one described in the schema, the description should compensate more but doesn't.

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 issues in an allowed repository' uses a specific verb ('list'), resource ('issues'), and scoping qualifier ('allowed repository'), which clearly establishes the core purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like list_issue_events and list_issue_comments by targeting the issue list itself, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies this lists issues within a repository context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like get_issue (single issue), list_issue_comments (comments), or list_issue_events (event history). The qualifier 'allowed repository' hints at a permission constraint but doesn't name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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