GitHub issues

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety profile, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to state that creating an issue is a mutating action, that listing/getting are reads, whether authentication is needed, or what side effects occur. No pagination, error, or return behavior is mentioned.

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 very short, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. 'create prompts' is confusing filler that does not earn its place, and the core sentence omits necessary operational detail. It should clearly state the action modes and required inputs.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is too incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke this tool correctly. It does not explain how to choose among list/get/create, what values 'action' accepts, or why 'full_name' is required. The tool appears moderately complex, but the description leaves critical invocation details implicit.

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 any of the five parameters. It never clarifies what 'action' values are valid, what 'full_name' should look like, or how 'number', 'title', and 'body' relate to the listed operations. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond raw parameter names.

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 phrase 'List/get/create issues' names a specific resource and three actions, so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'create prompts' is cryptic and may be a typo, and the description does not clearly separate the behaviors of listing, getting, and creating. It is understandable at a high level but not precise enough to fully distinguish this tool from github_repo or github_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?

The description gives no signal about when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_pr or github_repo. There is no mention of required context, such as needing a repository full_name, nor any exclusion criteria. 'create prompts' is not actionable guidance for selecting this tool.

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