github-api.listRepoIssues

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 known. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as pagination, filters, or output format, but with annotations covering the key aspects, a 3 is reasonable.

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 one sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and to the point, earning a perfect score.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, with no parameters and no mention of how the repository is identified, the description lacks clarity on prerequisites (e.g., which repo). It is minimally complete but leaves ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The tool likely uses implicit context (like repo from environment), but the description provides no further semantics. However, with 100% schema coverage and no parameters, a baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists issues for a GitHub repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getRepo and searchRepos, but doesn't specify the repo parameter, which is absent from 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?

The description implies it is for listing issues, but does not state when to use it versus other GitHub tools like getRepo or searchRepos. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided, but the context is clear enough for basic use.

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