gitlab_create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the API endpoint but fails to describe important aspects like authentication requirements, side effects of creation, error conditions (e.g., missing project_id behavior), or any rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a clear purpose, though it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without losing conciseness. Rating 4 for efficient but not perfect communication.

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?

Despite having an output schema (implied), the description does not mention return values, error handling, or any special behavior. Given the complexity of 11 parameters and many options, the description lacks the context needed for a complete understanding. It falls short of what is minimally required.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its 11 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline is 3 because the schema carries the burden; the description's minimal statement does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what is already structured.

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 action ('Create an issue') and the resource ('GitLab REST API /projects/:id/issues'), making the tool's primary purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_issue or gitlab_create_merge_request through the specific verb and resource.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_create_merge_request) or when not to use it. Usage is implied through the purpose, but no contextual advice is given.

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