report_issue

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

Discloses that it returns a URL (not a submitted issue), that inputs may be truncated due to GitHub URL length limits, and that the user must click and submit in their browser. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded.

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 the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema (even if not shown), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, usage scenario, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. No gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description explains the purpose of summary, last_error, and additional_context. It also mentions truncation for long inputs. Could be slightly more explicit about additional_context, but overall adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly that it builds a prefilled GitHub issue URL for reporting bugs in this MCP server. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which all deal with Recruit CRM data.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to flag unexpected behavior in this MCP server (not a Recruit CRM data issue).' Also provides guidance on passing last_error and notes truncation.

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