get_github_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that only open issues are returned and that they are recent, which conveys read-only behavior and scoping. However, it omits GitHub-specific traits an agent could encounter: the issues endpoint also returns pull requests, rate limits or auth may apply, and the exact sort ordering behind 'recent' is unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the core function is front-loaded in sentence one and the use case in sentence two. The key scoping constraint ('open') is placed early, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter list tool with no nested objects or output schema, the description plus the fully documented schema covers function, scope, and use case adequately. The notable gaps are the lack of any hint about the return payload shape (which matters since no output schema exists) and the pull-request-inclusion quirk of GitHub's issues API, both minor for a tool this straightforward.

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%: repo includes owner/repo format with an example, limit has minimum, maximum, and default, and labels provides example values. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema fully documents every parameter, the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Get recent open GitHub issues') scoped to a repository, making the action and resource unambiguous. It also adds the use case ('checking known bugs and feature requests'), which clearly separates it from all sibling tools that concern docs, SDKs, and packages rather than issue tracking.

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 second sentence ('Useful for checking known bugs and feature requests') implies when the tool should be used, giving some context for issue triage and repo-health checks. However, it never states explicit conditions or names alternatives, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance. The risk is low because no sibling overlaps with GitHub issues, but the usage direction remains implied rather than explicit.

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