list_issues

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: compact summaries, no bodies, pull requests excluded, and pagination behavior. It doesn't explain possibly surprising behavior around openWorld or how since interacts with sort, but the annotations carry the main burden.

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, each informative: what it returns, what it excludes, and pagination guidance. No filler, and the most important distinguishing facts are front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are documented. Pagination and exclusions are covered, and the description names the sibling get_issue for full text. The only slight gap is not specifying how openWorldHint affects the result scope, but that is minor given the annotations.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it does not, for example, explain the relationship between since and sort. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb+resource (list issues) and differentiates it from siblings by specifying the compact summary fields returned and explicitly noting that pull requests are excluded. It also points to get_issue as the alternative for full text, making it distinct.

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?

It explicitly states what the tool returns and what it does not return (bodies), advises calling get_issue for full text, and warns about pagination with has_more and next_page. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools.

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