list_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the endpoint and parameter names, without disclosing pagination defaults, filtering syntax, sorting behavior, or other operational traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact endpoint and parameter list. It has no filler, though the repetitive parameter lines could have been replaced with actual semantics.

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 simple read-only list call with an output schema and safety annotations, calling with no parameters is well-defined. However, the definition is incomplete for parameterized use because it never explains filter/sort syntax, pagination behavior, or requested_by semantics.

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 only labels each parameter as 'Query parameter' without explaining what it does, how sort/filter strings should be formed, or what requested_by means. It identifies names but does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all issues'), clearly identifying a list operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue_by_issue_id and list_issue_count, and the endpoint line reinforces the exact resource.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issue_count, get_issue_by_issue_id, or create_issue. The phrase 'Get all issues' implies a collection use case, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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