github_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, side effects (e.g., creation of a new resource), or error conditions. The description is minimal.

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 uses a clear list format. It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameters. However, it could be more structured with sections or additional context.

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 that an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. However, the description does not cover side effects, prerequisites, or permission requirements for a creation action. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that repo is in 'owner/repo format', title is required, body is markdown, and assigns labels and assignees. The schema has 0% coverage, so the description provides essential parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Create an issue') and the resource ('in a repo'). Among sibling tools like github_add_labels_to_issue or github_get_issue, this is uniquely identifiable as the creation tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that you use it to create an issue, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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