list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, default result count, permissions, or what happens when filters return nothing — the only behavioral hint is that filters are optional.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a seven-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It also creates mild tension by saying 'for a project' while project_id is not a required parameter, leaving the agent unsure whether an unscoped listing is valid.

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 all seven parameters (tag, limit, status, severity, issue_type, project_id, assigned_to) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond restating that filters exist, which is the correct baseline 3 when the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List issues') plus the scoping context ('for a project') and the filter capability. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_issues, which an agent would need in order to choose between the two.

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 indication of when to use this versus search_issues, get_issue, or any other sibling. 'Optional filters' hints at use but offers no context, prerequisites, or boundaries.

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