sassy_ghq_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing the pagination behavior (30 per page), the auth requirement (GITHUB_TOKEN or GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN), and the significant gotcha that the GitHub issues endpoint includes pull requests in results. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-only. Lists issues in a repo, 30 per page.') and every subsequent sentence earns its place: parameter requirements, return format, the PR gotcha, auth, and alternative routing. It is on the longer side at eight sentences, but the density of non-redundant, decision-relevant information justifies the length.

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 covers purpose, all parameters, return format, auth prerequisites, a behavioral gotcha, and alternative tool routing. An output schema exists for return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It compensates well: it marks owner and repo as required, documents state's valid values (open default; closed or all), and explains page's default and 1-indexed convention. Owner and repo are self-evident from their names, so the description covers all non-obvious parameter behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists issues in a repo, 30 per page.' It clearly states the read-only nature and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming sassy_ghq_issue (create) and sassy_gh_list_issues (full-featured alternative). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use for a quick daily-driver listing; for label filters, sorting, direction, or custom page sizes use the github_full tool sassy_gh_list_issues. To create an issue use sassy_ghq_issue.' This names concrete alternatives and the exact conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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