List Issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor-based, limit, hasMore, nextCursor), previewOnly returning first 100 words, and the inclusion of baseBranch field. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but listing implies non-destructive.

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 6 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains return fields (baseBranch) and pagination metadata. It covers preview behavior and organization detection. Could mention sorting but not essential for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema: context about automatic organization detection, preview length, and pagination metadata. It provides useful elaboration.

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 it lists issues for an organization in Magnet with markdown content, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue_by_id (single issue) and create_issue by focusing on listing.

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 explains organization detection and previewOnly usage but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed, but no guidance on selection criteria.

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