report_issue

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: it creates a GitHub issue if GITHUB_TOKEN is configured, otherwise returns a pre-formatted template. It also mandates asking permission, addressing consent. However, it could mention inactivity or retry behavior if the token is invalid.

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 (about 10 sentences) with a clear structure: a one-line summary, a bullet list of use cases, a note on token configuration, and an important instruction. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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 reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters (via schema), behavior (issue creation vs. template), and a safety guideline (ask permission). It lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid token) but is otherwise sufficient for correct use.

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%, providing baseline descriptions. The description adds only minor context for the 'context' parameter ('error messages, file paths, query used, etc.'). It does not elaborate on 'title', 'description', or 'labels' beyond what the schema provides, so value added is limited.

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 explicitly states 'Report a bug or issue with Grafema to GitHub.' It lists specific scenarios (unexpected errors, incorrect results, missing features, documentation issues), clearly distinguishing this tool from all sibling tools, none of which serve an issue-reporting function.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when you encounter: ...' with a bullet list of cases. It also includes the critical instruction to 'Always ask the user for permission before reporting an issue.' No alternative tool exists for this purpose, so no need for exclusion guidance.

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