Create Issue

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

With no behavioral annotations beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the burden but only adds the error case for disabled issue trackers. It fails to disclose idempotency, permission requirements, or consequences of invalid inputs, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 somewhat verbose, listing all parameters in an Args section that largely duplicates the input schema. While structured with Args and Returns sections, it could be trimmed to more succinctly convey essential info without redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately mentions a specific error case. However, it lacks broader context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or how this tool fits among siblings (e.g., vs. pull request creation). It is minimally complete for a resource creation tool.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The description provides basic parameter types and optional status but adds minimal insight beyond the schema (e.g., 'markdown' for content, examples for kind/priority, default for workspace). It does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Create a new issue in a repository's issue tracker.' This uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('issue') and effectively distinguishes from siblings like update_issue, get_issue, and list_issues.

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 parameter details but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_pull_request, update_issue). Usage context is implied through the purpose statement, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are provided.

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