Get GitHub Issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, git-based auto-detection of owner/repo, but omits result scope (open vs all), pagination, and whether it hits the network/auth requirements.

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 with zero waste; the most failure-prone instruction is capitalized and placed where it will be read. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter listing tool with 40% schema coverage, the description should clarify filter behavior (state default 'open', limit/pagination) and what use_test_db switches before an agent can call it confidently.

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 40%; owner and repo are already documented in the schema, so the description's warning largely restates them. The undocumented parameters (state, limit, use_test_db) receive no explanation in the description, so the coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List issues from a GitHub repository'), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like create_entry or close_github_issue_with_entry. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular get_github_issue or from get_github_prs, which is the main gap for a 5.

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 strong parameter-level guidance (do not guess owner/repo, leave empty to auto-detect), but it says nothing about when to choose this over get_github_issue (single issue), get_github_context, or get_github_prs. Usage context is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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