gh_issue_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List GitHub Issues' and does not reveal whether it requires authentication, operates on the current repository, returns all issues by default, or any other behavioral traits.

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 at just three words, but it is under-specified. It lacks crucial details like the existence of the 'state' parameter, making the conciseness insufficient rather than appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is expected to provide context. It fails to mention the filtering option, repository context, or return format, leaving significant gaps for such a simple tool.

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 includes a 'state' parameter with enum values and a default, but the description does not mention this filtering capability at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate and adds no meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 GitHub Issues.' clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitHub Issues'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like gh_pr_list, but the resource itself is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 vs alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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