createIssueSummary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing whether this is a safe read operation, how it handles large repositories, or what the output looks like. It only says 'summarise' with no hint of side effects, rate limits, or return shape, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 with no fluff, which is good. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, offering no structure or additional headers that could aid rapid parsing. It earns a middle score for being brief yet minimally informative.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the summary contains and how it is presented. The current text only says 'summarise', leaving out essential details like whether it returns a text block, structured data, or a list of key points. This gap makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The schema describes the sole parameter 'repo' as a string with no description, and the tool description does not explain what format the repo identifier should take (e.g., owner/name, URL, or local path). With 0% schema coverage and no compensation from the description, the agent is left guessing the parameter's 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 'Summarise a repository's open issues' clearly states the verb (summarise) and resource (open issues), and the mention of 'repository' distinguishes it from listing or reading files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listOpenIssues beyond the verb choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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 listOpenIssues or getRepoInfo. The description implies a high-level overview use case, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or contexts where another tool would be preferred.

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