list_github_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the 'open' filter behavior, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond the parameters. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or other potential behaviors, so transparency is minimal but not absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks any mention of return format, pagination, or other behavior that would help an agent set expectations. Given no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but not enough context for complex decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'owner' and 'repo'. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'open issues in a GitHub repository', clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_github_issue and list_github_labels by focusing on retrieval of open issues.

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 implies usage for retrieving open issues but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or mention of alternative tools, so the usage context is only implied by the description and tool name.

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