Crear issue de GitHub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but says nothing about authentication requirements, required scopes/permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what the tool returns after creation — significant gaps for a mutating GitHub tool.

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, no padding, with the action front-loaded before the usage cue. Efficient and appropriately sized for a simple four-parameter tool.

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?

All parameters are self-documented and no output schema exists, so the schema side is complete. But with zero annotations on a mutation tool, the description should at minimum note the auth/permission requirement and that the issue is created in the specified repo; that behavioral layer is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so owner, repo, title and body are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint or usage detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Crea un nuevo issue dentro de un repositorio de GitHub'. That is unambiguous and clearly separable from list-issues/create-commit/create-repository. It lacks any explicit contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete trigger contexts — registering a problem, task, improvement, bug or request — which is real when-to-use guidance. However it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative sibling (e.g. list-issues for reading), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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