github_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions markdown support for body and comma-separated formats for labels/assignees, but does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, permission needs, or error behaviors. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 and well-organized in an Args block. Each line adds useful information without redundancy, though it could be more structured with bullet points or a clearer heading.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. The parameter explanations are solid, but the tool lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, making it minimally complete for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's format, including an example for labels, markdown support for body, and clarifying that assignees are usernames. This adds real value beyond the property names.

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 starts with 'Create a new issue in a repository.' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_issue, list_issues, and close_issue. The intent is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the verb 'Create' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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