list_issues

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral clarity. The word 'list' correctly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention default filtering behavior, pagination, or whether pull requests are excluded from the results. It is safe but minimal.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence to convey the core action and the presence of filters. It earns its place by being concise, even though it could be expanded with directional context.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, this description is too thin. The agent is left to infer the exact behavior of filters, defaults, and repository scoping from property names alone. A few extra sentences about return contents, common filter values, and default behavior would make the tool safe to invoke without external API 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 clarify any of the seven parameters beyond calling them 'optional filters.' Though parameter names like 'owner', 'repo', 'state', and 'labels' are intuitive, the description should help call properly provide context for labels formatting, state values, sort options, and pagination behavior.

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 within a specific GitHub repository, using an explicit verb and resource. It is distinct enough from 'get_issue' and 'list_pull_requests' even though it does not explicitly call out those siblings. The mention of 'optional filters' adds useful scope without overcomplicating.

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 it clear this is the tool to use for listing issues from a repository, so the basic usage is implied. However, it does not say when to use an alternative like get_issue for a single issue or list_pull_requests for pull requests. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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