reopen_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of queuing for human approval, which signals that no immediate action occurs. However, it does not reveal other traits such as what happens after approval, how to track the pending action, or any auth requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and queueing behavior. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to the intended meaning.

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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema covers return values. However, the description omits integration guidance with the approval workflow, such as referencing sibling tools like list_pending_actions or execute_approved_action. It is complete enough for basic invocation but lacks contextual depth for navigating the full process.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (owner, repo, issue_number). While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making this a low score per the rubric.

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: 'Request reopening of an issue' and differentiates it from sibling tools like close_issue by adding that it 'queues exact action for human approval.' This is a specific verb+resource with a unique behavioral distinction.

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: to request reopening of an issue, and it queues for human approval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like execute_approved_action or close_issue. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparative guidance.

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