이슈 닫기

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the consequential nature of the action and the authorization precondition, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the close is reversible/reopenable, or whether the comment is posted before the state change.

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?

Two compact sentences: the action and the optional comment come first, then the usage constraint. No filler and nothing is buried.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. The usage precondition is covered well, but side effects, permission needs, and failure behavior for this state-changing operation are left unaddressed.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'issue' (GitHub issue number) and 'comment' (optional closing comment). The description only restates the optionality of the comment and adds no format or range detail beyond the schema.

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 ('이슈를 닫습니다' - close the issue) plus the optional closing comment. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like wyea_status or wyea_check, though it never names any sibling such as wyea_comment, which also writes to an 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?

Gives an explicit, prescriptive precondition: use only when the representative (대표) directed the close, or once the request is fully handled. That is a clear when-to-use rule rather than an implied one.

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