list_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the free-text filter is applied client-side, pagination is only honored in archive mode, and limit has a cap of 100. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with main action. Every word adds information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Lacks output schema, so return shape is not described. However, pagination and defaults are covered. Given 9 parameters and client-side behavior, the description is mostly complete for a list tool.

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 67% with basic descriptions. The description adds value for include_archived/status relationship and client-side filter, but does not elaborate on parameters like type, priority, or reporter beyond schema.

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 explicitly states 'List issues (cards) in a project, optionally filtered' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_issue or get_issue by focusing on listing.

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 provides clear when-to-use context, including default behavior (ACTIVE issues only) and how to retrieve archived issues via include_archived or status. It does not explicitly name alternatives but implies the scope clearly.

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