Create GitHub issue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that issue is created in linked repo and requires integration. Does not mention return value, error handling, or potential side effects, though creation is generally safe.

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?

Three sentences with no redundant information. Purpose, use cases, and prerequisites are front-loaded. Each sentence serves a distinct role.

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?

Simple tool with 3 params and no output schema. Description covers purpose, use scenarios, and prerequisites. Missing mention of return value or success indication, but overall adequate for the complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds no new semantic meaning beyond schema; it only provides context. No additional parameter details.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new GitHub issue in the project's connected repository' with specific verb and resource. Lists concrete use cases (bug reports, test failures, action items). Sibling tools have different purposes, so well differentiated.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (reporting bugs, tracking failures, action items) and mentions prerequisites (GitHub integration and WOPEE_PROJECT_UUID). Lacks explicit 'not for' cases, but context is sufficient.

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