list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only says 'Get list of repository issues' with no mention of pagination, rate limits, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While it could be improved with more context, it is not verbose and focuses on the core purpose. Every word earns its place, but it lacks any structure for readability.

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 three parameters (fully described in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination, ordering, or how it differs from similar list tools. The agent lacks enough context to properly use this tool in complex scenarios.

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 100% at both parameter level and for enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'state'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents parameters.

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 states 'Get list of repository issues', which clearly identifies the action (get list) and the resource (repository issues). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue, get_pull_request, etc., which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool lists issues without creating them, nor does it specify that it differs from list_pull_requests or search functionality. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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