list_issues

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extra transparency by disclosing pagination limits and edge-case behavior (empty items with next_cursor), which is useful for callers.

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, using three well-structured sentences with no redundant words. Each sentence adds distinct information about the tool's behavior.

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 list operation, the description covers the essential aspects: resource, filtering, sorting, pagination, and a practical hint. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for a caller to understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the meaning of 'open' for the status parameter and 'digest_order' for sort, but does not explain other parameters like limit, order, cursor, or project. Partial coverage only.

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 action ('List issues') and the resource scope ('for a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events or list_projects. It also provides specific sorting and status nuances.

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 gives practical usage guidance: explains the meaning of 'open' status, cautions about pagination (at most three pages, empty items may have next_cursor), and suggests using digest_order for a less volatile sort. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others, but the context makes it clear.

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