list_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 discloses pagination, default and maximum limits, filtering options, and the returned data structure. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be helpful for a tool interacting with GitHub.

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 a short introductory sentence followed by a bullet-like list of filters and their defaults. It also specifies the return structure. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. Slightly front-loaded with the purpose.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema defined but description includes return structure), the description provides most necessary details for a listing tool. It covers filtering and pagination well. Missing owner/repo/direction and behavioral notes, but overall fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 6 out of 9 parameters (state, labels, milestone, assignee, sort, limit) with defaults and options (e.g., milestone by title not number). However, it misses owner, repo, and direction parameters, which are important for specifying the repository and sort order. This gap reduces completeness.

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 that the tool lists and filters GitHub issues with pagination. The verb 'list' and resource 'GitHub issues' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_issue' or 'close_issue' which handle individual issues or different actions.

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 explains when to use the tool (listing/filtering issues) and provides details on optional filters and defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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