Request a feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the external side effect (GitHub issue), privacy handling for reporter data ('only if they offered it'), and failure behavior (a prefilled issue link is returned). It omits auth or rate-limit details, but those are minor for this tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then usage conditions, then submission and failure behavior. No wasted phrasing; each sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets created, what to include, the privacy constraint, and the fallback path when submission fails. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds real meaning on top: it tells the agent what to put in the context field (what the user was trying to achieve and why tools fell short) and how to treat reporter (only if offered), which goes beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sends a feature request to the maintainer as a GitHub issue. This is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling report_bug tool, leaving a small ambiguity between a feature request and a bug report.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: a missing verb or option, a limit that got in the way, or a workaround. It does not name the alternative report_bug or state an exclusion for bugs, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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