list_issues

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

No annotations provided; description adds filtering of PRs but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains return fields and PR filtering. Lacks mention of ordering or pagination, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 well-documented in schema. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., no clarification on defaults or examples). Baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it lists issues in a GitHub repository, specifies returned fields (number, state, title, author), and explicitly filters out pull requests. Distinguishes well from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to see open, closed, or all issues in a repo.' Implicitly distinguishes from siblings (add_comment, create_issue) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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