prepare_issue_report

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the operation is fully local, makes no network requests or submissions, requires user approval for any link opening or submission, and that GitHub sign-in is needed only for the later submit step. It also adds the anti-repetition rule ('Do not repeatedly suggest a report after dismissal'), which is behavioral guidance not available in annotations. All disclosed behaviors align with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Five dense sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, constraints, network behavior, approval requirement, and repetition policy. The most important scoping ('LOCAL... not a defect in the user app') is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or boilerplate.

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 tool with 5 enum-constrained parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full call lifecycle: what it produces (a local preview), how to present it (show complete preview to user), what not to include, when submission may happen, and the social rule about not nagging. Combined with the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It states that only fixed categories are accepted and explicitly forbids source, logs, paths, and credentials, which helps clarify the enum-constrained parameters. However, it does not map the description to individual parameters (feature, symptom, client, platform, reproducibility), relying on the self-descriptive enum values. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the zero schema coverage.

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: 'Prepare a LOCAL issue preview for an ios-agent-mcp failure.' It explicitly scopes the tool to failures of the agent itself, not user app defects, and distinguishes it from the development-oriented sibling tools by its reporting purpose. The uniqueness is obvious even without comparing schemas.

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?

Provides clear context: use for ios-agent-mcp failures, not user app defects; never include source, logs, paths, or credentials; only suggests after user approval; don't repeat after dismissal. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the tool's reporting role is so distinct from the other tools that explicit exclusions are less necessary. The 'not a defect in the user app' line effectively routes away from the app-review siblings.

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