create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no side effects, no note about required fields or what the creation returns. 'Create new issue' says only what the name already says.

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 text is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is a single fragment with no structure and nothing front-loaded because nothing of substance is present.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks the input semantics, defaults, and authorization context needed to call this correctly.

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% across four parameters, including enum definitions (IssueStatus, IssuePriority) with no descriptions and required fields (title, description) with no explanation. The description compensates for none of this, adding zero parameter meaning.

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 'Create new issue' merely restates the tool name create_issue as a sentence. It names a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail beyond what the identifier already conveys, and gives no hint of scope or content relative to siblings like update_issue or delete_issue.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no indication of when creating an issue is appropriate versus updating or listing one, so the description provides no usage direction at all.

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