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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key non-obvious trait that creating an issue 'posts publicly' and requires user confirmation. This is substantive, though it doesn't mention permanence or side effects beyond posting.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the public/confirmation caveat, and body quality guidance. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, and there is no filler.

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 description covers purpose, consent, public visibility, and body expectations. The schema covers parameter semantics and the output schema exists. A minor gap is that the default repo behavior when 'repo' is null is not explained, but overall the tool can be invoked correctly with the provided context.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the body should include enough context for someone outside the conversation to act on it, which gives meaningful guidance for the body parameter beyond the schema's 'Markdown body.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open a new issue.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues, get_issue, and comment_on_issue, and the added public-posting caveat clarifies the nature of the action.

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 context for when to use this tool: it posts publicly, so 'confirm with the user first.' It also instructs how to format the body. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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