list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (number, title, state, and URL of each issue), which is useful because there is no output schema. It does not mention potential side effects, but as a read-only listing tool, the absence is acceptable.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and listing return fields. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity and the fully documented schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not explicitly mention pagination or default state, but these are covered in the schema, so the description is adequate.

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 each parameter described. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only mentions the state filter, which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool lists issues from a GitHub repository and filters by state (open, closed, all). It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('issues de un repositorio de GitHub'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_issue and close_issue by focusing on listing.

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 explicitly provides a usage trigger: 'Usa este tool cuando el usuario pregunte "qué issues hay"'. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools explicitly. It is still strong for practical use.

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