List issues

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: default lean rows vs full:true, cursor-based pagination, server-side name resolution with error behavior, and filtering with team/includeCompleted to reduce row count. This provides thorough transparency for an agent.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the key purpose and output format. However, it packs dense information without visual structure (e.g., bullet lists for parameters), which could be improved for readability while maintaining brevity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: pagination, filtering, default/rich output, server-side name resolution, error behavior, and performance tips. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema: explaining full as a toggle for richer rows, query as case-insensitive search, cursor for pagination, and the effect of includeCompleted on filtering. This enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'List issues as a {issues, hasNextPage, cursor} envelope', clearly defining the action (list) and resource (issues). It is specific about the output structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue, list_comments, etc., by focusing on listing multiple 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 provides usage guidance for key features: using query for text search, cursor for pagination, server-side resolution of filter names, and team/includeCompleted for performance. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like search_documentation or get_issue, leaving some ambiguity.

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