list_issues

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get issues', omitting any details about pagination, authentication, side effects, or whether it returns all issues or requires filters. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It front-loads the action but neglects to provide context or usage notes that would justify its length.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's complexity, return format, or how to effectively use the many filters and options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain key parameters. It adds no information about the 17 parameters (e.g., 'project_id', 'state', 'labels'), forcing the agent to infer from names alone, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'iid' vs '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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('issues') and ties it to a GitLab project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'list_issue_notes'. However, it lacks any detail about the scope or filtering capabilities, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_merge_requests' or 'list_milestones'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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