Github 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 burden. It discloses the required OPS_MCP_GITHUB_TOKEN and the returned fields (number, title, state, labels), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the read-only nature explicitly, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the operational prerequisite and a compact summary of the return fields. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return values need less explanation. The description provides the key prerequisite and filter behavior, but because parameter coverage is 0%, details like per_page pagination and state value options are left undocumented. This is adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's lack of field documentation. It only mentions 'state and labels' as filters, leaving owner, repo, and per_page without added meaning, and does not clarify accepted state values or labels formatting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List GitHub issues/PRs for a repo by state and labels.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_create_issue and github_pr_diff_summary by naming the listing behavior and the filter dimensions.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when a repo's issues or PRs need to be listed by state and labels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling performs the same listing function, so the context is sufficient.

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