Prepare a LocalMCP GitHub issue

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: no network request, no automatic log/file collection, and a mandatory preview-and-approval gate, which softens the readOnlyHint=false mutation signal. It never says what the non-read-only action actually produces (a draft file, a held payload), so the side-effect profile is incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by scope, safety and routing constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain which fields matter for which report kind and what the 'prepared' result looks like. It covers scope and safety well but leaves those gaps.

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?

Zero schema description coverage across 7 parameters, and the description only gestures at the kind enum via 'bug report, feature request or help request'. It gives no guidance on when the optional steps/actual/expected/environment fields are required per kind, leaving the agent to guess.

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 (Prepare) plus the exact artifact types (bug report, feature request, help request) and the target repo (al-mighty/localmcp). The verb 'prepare' plus the later 'before publishing' distinguishes it from the feedback_submit sibling without ambiguity.

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 inclusion criterion (only when the user wants to report a LocalMCP problem or suggestion), explicit workflow requirement (show the full preview and ask for approval before publishing), and an explicit exclusion with an alternative route (vulnerabilities/credentials go to SECURITY.md, not public issues).

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