create_github_issue

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It states that the action is 'logged as a side effect only', which transparently conveys that no actual GitHub issue will be created. This is sufficient transparency, though it does not elaborate on what logging entails.

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, focused sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose and side-effect behavior. It does not waste words and is easy to parse.

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?

While the tool is distinguishable from create_issue via the word 'Simulate', the description lacks essential context about parameter meanings and the relationship to the incident workflow. It also does not clarify when simulation is preferred over real creation, beyond the implicit side-effect distinction.

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?

The schema provides only parameter names and types, with no descriptions. The tool description does not explain what public_id, title, or body represent, nor how they are used in the simulation. This leaves the agent guessing about required and optional fields, especially public_id.

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 that this tool simulates opening a GitHub issue for an incident, distinguishing it from real creation. The verb 'Simulate' and phrase 'logged as a side effect only' make the purpose unambiguous, especially alongside the sibling create_issue tool.

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 when to use it: whenever a simulated issue-opening is needed for an incident and no real side effects are desired. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of create_issue when testing', but the word 'Simulate' and the side-effect note provide clear guidance.

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