report_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: 'It does NOT auto-file' and that it returns a URL for the user to review. However, it could be more transparent about limitations like not checking issue validity or authentication needs, but the tool is simple.

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 three sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 simple URL-building tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it does, its return value, and when to use it. It is complete and easy to understand.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the repo parameter's default and panel-specific usage, and suggests what to include in the body (environment details), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool builds a ready-to-open GitHub issue link, specifying the verb 'build' and resource 'GitHub issue link'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on issue reporting, which no other tool does.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use it when you encounter an error you can't resolve so the user can report it upstream.' It also gives a specific example for panel bugs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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