list_my_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals result ordering, that state filtering happens after fetch, the over-fetch multiplier, the best-effort window, and the 'raise limit' remedy. This goes well beyond the basic 'list' semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then cleanly documents each parameter. The longer state caveat earns its space because the best-effort behavior is non-obvious and actionable.

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?

Together with the supplied output schema and defaults, the description gives everything needed to call the tool correctly: scope, ordering, parameter semantics, and a performance caveat. There is no missing safety or behavior context given the read-only nature of the operation.

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%, but the description fully compensates for both parameters. state gets a type of value, case-insensitivity, post-fetch behavior, and caveats; limit is defined as the maximum count returned.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: listing issues assigned to the API key owner, ordered by most recent update. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues (general search) and get_issue (single issue).

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 makes the tool's context clear: use for owner-assigned issues with optional state filtering. However, it never states when not to use it or points to alternatives such as search_issues for broader queries, so selection guidance is only implied.

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