create_issue

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. While 'Create' implies a write action, the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, potential errors, or what happens upon success (e.g., whether it returns the created issue). This leaves the tool's behavioral impact largely opaque, earning a low score.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant words. It packs essential parameter formatting rules into a compact format, making it easy to parse and remember. There is no fluff or unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for a tool description.

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 description gives the core purpose and a few parameter format hints, but it lacks context about the expected output (despite having an output schema), possible error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow alongside siblings like update_issue_status and add_comment. It does not clarify the difference between this and create_github_issue. This leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer, making the description moderately complete.

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 zero description coverage for the 10 parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning. It clarifies only two parameters (labels and features_json), while the remaining eight (kind, title, source, status, assignee, reporter, severity, description) have no semantic explanation. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently populate many fields, hence a low score.

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 the verb ('Create') and the object ('a new incident issue'), which precisely conveys the tool's primary function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_issues, get_issue, and update_issue by focusing on creation, and the mention of 'incident' helps differentiate it from create_github_issue.

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 provides some usage guidance by specifying that labels must be comma-separated and features_json must be a JSON object, which helps format those parameters correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_github_issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical use cases. The guidance is partially present but not comprehensive.

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