Github List Open Issues Prs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the fixed is:open qualifier and the exclusion of closed/merged items. It does not mention pagination or return format, but the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety aspects, so the added value is solid.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then immediately states the limitation and routes to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with a fully self-documenting schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (open items only), when to use a different tool, and the fixed qualifier. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond noting that some qualifiers are not exposed, which is more about usage guidance than semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool 'Lists open pull requests or issues', giving a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'github_search_issues_prs' by noting the fixed is:open scope and naming the alternative for closed/merged items, so an agent can distinguish them without inspecting schemas.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'The search is fixed to is:open, so closed and merged items are out of reach here' and directs 'Call github_search_issues_prs for those, and for any qualifier this tool does not expose.' This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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