github_issues_create

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

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, return format, or side effects. The description provides no value beyond the name.

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 excessively short—three words—but fails to convey essential details. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 complex input schema (nested object body), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks information about required body fields, success/error behavior, and usage examples.

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 baseline is 3. However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'Request body'), and the body parameter has no schema detail. The description adds no extra meaning.

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 'Create an issue' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from other issue operations like 'get' or 'update'. Though minimal, it is sufficient to identify the tool's basic purpose.

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 github_issues_update or github_issues_list. Users are left to infer context from the name alone.

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