list_issues

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists filters, implying non-destructive read behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no results exist.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical filter summary is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by separating key features (e.g., pagination, project requirement) for clarity.

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 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context such as the mandatory project_id, pagination behavior, and response format. It covers filters but not the broader operational context.

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 baseline is 3. The description groups filters (status, label, assignee) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these or other parameters like page, per_page, or project_id.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of issues with filtering by status, label, and assignee. This distinguishes it from single-issue retrieval (get_issue) and other issue-related tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates within a project context or supports pagination.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue for a single issue. The description implies usage for filtered listing but does not state prerequisites (e.g., project_id required) or exclusions.

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