list_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does mention result fields and verbosity, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or the nature of filters. The behavior is adequately described for a read operation, but not exhaustively.

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 (two sentences plus verbosity note) and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence is dense but efficient. A slightly more structured layout could improve readability, but overall it earns its place.

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 parameter count (4) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects like result fields and verbosity. However, it omits details on filters, pagination, and prerequisites, making it somewhat incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains verbosity values (minimal, standard, full), session default, and the role of id vs ref. However, the 'filters' parameter is only vaguely described as 'optionally filtered' without detailing its structure, leaving a gap.

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 the action ('lists') and the resource ('issues within a specific project'), with additional details about returned fields (id, ref) and verbosity levels. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_epics by specifying issues.

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 implies usage context (listing issues in a project) and mentions session default behavior, but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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