create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates a new issue' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description adds minimal value beyond the obvious implication of creation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose first. The parameter list is structured but could be more concise by grouping optional parameters. Every sentence (and the parameter list) serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations are minimal.

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?

Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool's purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context: no behavioral traits, no usage guidance, incomplete parameter semantics. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't reference this, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the schema provides only titles without descriptions. The description lists all 7 parameters with brief labels, adding basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain what each parameter represents (e.g., what a 'tracker_id' is, what values are valid for 'priority_id'), provide examples, or clarify that most parameters are optional with null defaults. This partially compensates for the schema gap but inadequately.

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 'Creates a new issue' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_issue', 'update_issue', and 'list_issues' by specifying creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (none exist in siblings) or provide additional context about what an 'issue' represents in this system.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid project_id), when not to use it, or relationships to sibling tools like 'update_issue' for modifications or 'list_issues' for viewing existing issues. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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