list_issues

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it returns paginated results, or any ordering defaults. For a list operation, behavioral traits like pagination are critical; omitting them makes it less transparent.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded but may be too brief, missing some context that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description still lacks completeness. It omits details on output format, pagination, and filtering. For a list tool, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably use it without additional knowledge.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names. While owner and repo are self-explanatory, the description fails to explain their roles or constraints. It should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 repository. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue (single issue) and search_issues (search across repos). However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., all issues, open issues) but is adequate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that get_issue is for a single issue or search_issues for cross-repo queries. The description provides no context on prerequisites or when to prefer list_issues.

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