search_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List issues' without mentioning pagination, default state (though the schema has a default of 'open'), whether pull requests are included, or any read-only implications. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, so it is concise without wasted words. However, it is overly terse and lacks structure, such as front-loading key information about default behavior or usage context. While not verbose, it fails to provide a well-rounded definition.

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?

The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description omits critical context: the default state (open), whether pull requests are included (GitHub issues vs PRs), and how this tool differs from 'search_repository_issues'. For a tool with three parameters and sibling overlap, this is incomplete.

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 description offers no parameter information whatsoever. The schema contains only titles, no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent must infer the meaning of 'owner', 'repo', and 'state' solely from names, which is inadequate. The description should have clarified parameter roles and constraints but does not.

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 a clear action (list) and resource (issues) within a GitHub repository, making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_repository_issues', which likely has overlapping functionality. The verb 'list' also conflicts with the tool name 'search_issues', potentially confusing an agent about the exact capability.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention filtering, search capabilities, or conditions under which 'search_repository_issues' or 'list_pull_requests' would be more appropriate. An agent receives no context for selection.

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