list_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main contribution is the default scope behavior. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits (max 100 per page from schema) or potential rate limiting. While not contradictory, it adds limited value beyond annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the default behavior is clearly stated. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the large number of parameters (21) and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or the fact that issues from all projects are listed if project_id is omitted. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete; it relies heavily on the well-documented schema but fails to provide a high-level overview of the tool's full capabilities.

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% with descriptions for all 21 parameters. The description only adds information about the 'scope' parameter's default value, which is already partially covered by the schema's enum. For other parameters, the description adds no new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but minimal added value reduces the score.

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 'list' and the resource 'issues', and it specifies the default scope (created by current user) and the alternative (use scope='all'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue) and my_issues (likely similar but with different default). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives a hint about using scope='all' for all issues, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like my_issues, nor does it discuss pagination, performance considerations, or prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but lacks comprehensive usage context.

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