github.create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that dry_run=true previews the request without writing anything, revealing that the default action writes. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action and then adding the dry_run caveat. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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 simple mutation tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits context about required repository parameters, potential failure modes, and the relationship to other issue operations. The output schema covers return values, so this is not a critical gap, but the description alone leaves some context unspecified.

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. It only explains dry_run, while owner, repo, title, body, and labels receive no added meaning beyond their names. The names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to provide any additional semantic context for these parameters.

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 opens with 'Create an issue,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_issue and list_issues, which are read operations. The dry_run note is an additional clarification without obscuring the primary purpose.

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 when an issue needs to be created, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., add_issue_comment for comments). There is no 'when-not' guidance or mention of prerequisite conditions like repository ownership.

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