log_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that a new issue is created and marked active, which is useful side-effect information. However, it does not address potential duplicates, persistence, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow instruction follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 with only two flat parameters and an output schema available. The description gives the key invocation context ('before writing fix code'). It is nearly complete, though the lack of annotations leaves some behavioral assumptions implicit.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters ('One-line bug description' and 'file:line or component'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open a new issue' and 'mark it active.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_issue and from post-fix tools like record_fix.

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 instruction 'Call BEFORE writing fix code' explicitly states when the tool should be used in the workflow. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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