report_issue

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses the return value ('Returns the issue id'), imposes a 'No secrets' constraint, and clarifies severity semantics. The annotations already cover the mutation/open-world safety profile, so this supplementary guidance is meaningful without needing to restate it.

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 dense lines, front-loaded with purpose, then value enumerations, then required content, then the safety constraint and return value. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the important pieces, including what is returned. It could say more about where the report is sent (openWorld behavior) and what happens to the stored issue, which keeps it at a 4.

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 0% and there are no enums in the schema, yet the description supplies the closed value sets for kind and severity and maps the narrative fields (tool name, arguments used, actual result, expected, project) to parameters. Only 'reproduce' and the role of 'title' remain implicit, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Report a problem with this server or the cluster interface') and scopes it to the maintainer session that fixes issues. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_issues, which is described as the read-side counterpart for checking status.

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?

Gives concrete filing guidance (include tool name, arguments, actual vs expected result, project), defines the kind values and severity levels including what 'high' means, and redirects to list_issues for status tracking. It does not explicitly say when *not* to file an issue or name alternative channels, so it stops short of a 5.

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