list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns issue local ID, title, status, and creation date, and supports pagination. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is ordered. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, with four short sentences each serving a clear purpose: purpose, returned fields, domain analogy, and pointer to an alternative. All content is directly useful and front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 is a straightforward list endpoint with a schema covering all parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it explains pagination, return fields, and how to get more details. With no output schema, it supplies a high-level return description. It could improve by mentioning ordering or response structure, but it covers the essential decision-making information.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents page, size, owner, and project. The description adds only the general notion of pagination and the list of returned fields, which does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List issues (tasks) of a GitFlic project with pagination.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_issue by noting that list_issues returns summaries and pointing to get_issue for full details. The analogy to GitHub Issues adds context.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool versus get_issue: use list_issues for summaries and pagination, use get_issue for full details including description and labels. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for filtering by label'), but the pointer to get_issue is a clear alternative.

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