list_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 concise - just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it's perfectly efficient.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but for a tool with this many parameters and no behavioral annotations, more context about usage patterns and constraints would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 in a repository' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue'. It's functional but lacks specificity about what kind of listing this provides.

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 like 'search_issues' or 'get_issue'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what constraints apply.

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