create_issue_tool

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, effects on related resources, or potential side effects. It only states the basic action without elaborating on consequences or prerequisites.

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 sole sentence is concise and grammatically clear, containing no filler or redundancy. It effectively communicates the core purpose in the fewest possible words.

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 seven parameters and two required fields, the description offers no extra context about typical usage, parameter relationships, or edge cases. An agent without prior knowledge might misuse optional parameters like labels or assignee_ids, as nothing beyond the schema guides correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. However, it also provides no additional semantic hints (e.g., how labels should be formatted or that assignee_ids are numeric user IDs), which would have added value.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new issue in a GitLab project'), distinguishing it from related tools like update_issue_tool or list_issues_tool. However, it does not add contextual details (e.g., scope, default behavior) beyond what the tool name implies, so it misses the top score for differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_merge_request_tool) or any prerequisites. The description gives no context about typical use cases or exclusions, meeting only the 'no guidance' criterion.

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