github_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention that creating an issue is a permanent mutation, requires authentication, or what the API response looks like. The description only restates the action and offers zero transparency beyond the literal operation.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and is appropriately concise for a simple create operation, making it easy to read and parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It lacks essential context such as return values, authentication requirements, error conditions, and parameter details, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further information.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what owner, repo, title, body, or labels mean or how they interact. Even though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory in a GitHub context, the description adds no value beyond the schema's type and required fields.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue') in a repository context. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, the 'create' verb effectively distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like github_list_issues, so it's clear but lacks explicit 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required permissions, repository ownership, or any expected flow. It simply states what it does without contextualizing the use case.

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