create_issue

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

With no annotations, the description only states the tool creates an issue. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or whether duplicates are prevented. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 concise with a one-line summary followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

While parameter semantics are well-covered, the description omits return value details, error conditions, and behavioral context (e.g., consequence of duplicates). Given no output schema and no annotations, more completeness would help agent decisions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, including formats (YYYY-MM-DD), markdown support, and references to list_enumerations for tracking and priority IDs.

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 starts with '새 이슈 생성' (Create new issue), clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue or list_issues by focusing on creation.

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 a parameter hint to use list_enumerations for tracker_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, or any prerequisites beyond required parameters.

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