list_issues

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'optional filters' without revealing defaults (e.g., state=open), pagination behavior (page, per_page), or sorting options. For a listing tool with multiple parameters, this is insufficient transparency.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it sacrifices informative content for brevity, making it efficient yet under-specified.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 3 enums, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far too brief. It omits key details such as default state filtering, pagination limits, sorting options, and label filtering, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 38% (only state, labels, and per_page have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond the vague phrase 'optional filters', failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't mention that filters include state, labels, sort, or pagination.

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 'List issues in a repository with optional filters', identifying the specific action (list), resource (issues), and scope (repository). It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like search_issues or issue_read, but the verb and resource are specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_issues or list_issue_comments. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent has no context for tool selection.

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