create_github_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'creates a new issue'. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or the immediate persistence of the issue. This is a gap similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is appropriately brief for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, and the description offers no parameter semantics or usage guidance. While an output schema exists, it does not cover invocation details. The agent is left uncertain about the expected format of repo_name and optionality of labels, making the description insufficient for correct use.

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 description provides zero parameter information, and schema coverage is 0%. Parameter names like repo_name, title, body, and labels are not explained. For instance, repo_name likely expects 'owner/repo' format, but this is not stated. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the action ('Creates a new issue') and the target resource ('GitHub repository'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like comment_github_issue (comment vs create) and create_github_pull_request (issue vs PR).

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 such as create_github_pull_request or comment_github_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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