list_open_issues_prs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return types and error handling, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 structured with sections (Args, Returns, Error Handling) and is moderately concise. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear formatting, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 description provides sufficient context for a list tool with five parameters, including return type and error behavior. The presence of an output schema (indicated in context signals) reduces the need to detail return values. However, the lack of annotations and omission of scope (e.g., only open items) slightly reduces completeness.

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 explains all five parameters in detail, including examples for 'filtering' and valid values for 'issue'. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has only 20% description coverage. The defaults and usage are clearly communicated.

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 explicitly states the tool lists open pull requests or issues for a specified GitHub repository owner. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or get single items.

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 the tool's purpose but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools are mostly for actions (create, update, merge), usage is implicitly clear, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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