sassy_ghq_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List issues' only implies a read operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, default state, or what the response contains. It adds minimal transparency beyond the name.

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 extremely short ('List issues.'), which is under-specification rather than concise. It omits critical details and does not earn its place as sufficient guidance.

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 4 parameters and lack of annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, default behavior, or how to filter issues, making it inadequate for correct tool invocation.

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 provides zero meaning for the 4 parameters (owner, repo, state, page). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names.

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 'List issues' states a specific verb and resource, but it is vague and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'sassy_ghq_issue' (singular) or clarify the scope (e.g., which repository). It lacks context about being GitHub issues or any filtering parameters.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of whether this is for queried issues, specific states, or how it relates to other issue/PR tools.

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