report_issue

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

Annotations already declare a non-readOnly, open-world write with no idempotency. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it bundles journal/metrics/version automatically, is deduplicated per session so retries won't spam, and defaults to the stm32-gdb-mcp repo. It doesn't state auth/permission needs or what happens if gh is unavailable, so not a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, then the trigger, then the dedup safeguard, then the default target. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description still conveys enough for correct invocation: what gets bundled, the dedup behavior, and the default repo. It leaves the return/confirmation behavior unstated, a minor gap for a write tool posting to an external service.

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%, so each parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema (confirms the repo default and the session target), so no lift above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Files) and resource (GitHub issue about MCP problems from this session), plus the key mechanics: auto-bundling the session journal, metrics, and MCP version via the gh CLI. An agent can distinguish this from export_debug_report or self_check without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: "Call this when a tool misbehaves or confuses you." This gives clear context for use. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., export_debug_report for a local export vs. filing upstream) or explicit when-not conditions, keeping it below a 5.

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