create_issue_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state (creates an issue), but it does not mention required auth/permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, API rate-limit implications, or what the response contains. With no annotations and no behavioral detail beyond 'create', this is a notable gap.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the primary action and target, though it could briefly mention mutation or required fields without adding bulk.

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 tool has a straightforward purpose and a complete schema, plus an output schema, so an agent can likely invoke it correctly. However, with no annotations and no description of behavioral context (permissions, response, or error cases), the description is only minimally viable rather than fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including defaults and the owner fallback. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Create a new issue in a GitHub repository.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_tool, list_issues_tool, and update_issue_tool, though it does not explicitly name them. It is specific enough for an agent to know the core action.

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 usage context (creating a new issue) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_issue_tool or create_issue_comment_tool. The schema adds helpful defaults (e.g., owner defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG), but the description itself offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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