Create GitHub Issue Set

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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the safety default (dryRun:true), warns about missing labels/bodies, and describes the return format (preview + warnings vs. live issue numbers + URLs). The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this while adding critical safety context. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear header, safety warning, and argument list. It is longer than minimal but each sentence adds value. There is no redundant repetition of schema information. The structure makes it easy for an agent to scan for safety and key parameters.

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 parameters, 1 required, and nested objects, the description is quite complete. It explains dry-run behavior, safety, output differences, and references sibling tool plan_from_context for input format. However, it does not cover error handling or rate limits, and the output schema is not fully described in the description (though it exists). Still, it provides enough context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description's role is to add context. It adds value by explaining the 'dryRun' default explicitly, noting that 'issues' can accept plan_from_context's 'issueDrafts' directly, and clarifying the 'owner' and 'repo' fallbacks. The description also mentions 'titlePrefix' as prepended to titles. This goes beyond schema boilerplate, earning a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Split an SDLC plan into GitHub issues.' It specifies the action (split/convert), resource (SDLC plan to GitHub issues), and includes the dry-run preview mode, which distinguishes it from issue-creation tools without preview.

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 guidance on when to use dry run vs. live creation: 'dryRun defaults to true... You MUST explicitly pass dryRun:false to create issues.' It also describes the dry-run output as a 'human pre-write confirmation page.' However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternative tools for issue creation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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