gitea_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a mutation (create), but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate titles, permission requirements, or rate limits. The basic description is accurate but incomplete for an AI agent.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the action. Every word serves a purpose with no fluff, and the structure is front-loaded with the core verb-resource action.

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 the tool's relative simplicity (4 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what the return value or success indicator is, but without an output schema, the agent might need additional guidance on response format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. For a tool with 4 parameters and 3 required, the description could usefully explain optional parameters like 'body' (e.g., Markdown supported) or implied defaults.

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 'Create a new issue in a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitea_issues (which likely lists issues) and gitea_repos, but could be slightly more explicit about scope (e.g., whether this works for any repository or only accessible ones).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitea_issues (which might be for fetching/listing), or what prerequisites exist (e.g., authentication, repository existence). The description does not mention when not to use it or offer any context for selection among sibling tools.

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