list_repo_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists issues, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any ordering. The output schema exists but the description does not add behavioral context beyond the action.

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 concise and uses a clear structure (Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main action. Only slightly impacted by using Python docstring style which may not be universal.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and purpose. It does not mention default ordering or filtering (e.g., state), but the schema limits scope. Completeness is adequate given 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 the input schema already documents both parameters (repo, limit). The description adds a format hint for repo but otherwise repeats schema info. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'list issues for a repository', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, delete, update) and other list tools (branches, labels, pulls).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is implied, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is clear from context but lacks explicit guidance.

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