submit_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of guest_access_token and the deprecation handling for 'advisory' visibility. However, it does not mention side effects, destructive nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and return value, followed by a required condition and a deprecation note. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more streamlined without loss of information.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers purpose, return value, required constraints, and deprecation. It lacks error handling or failure modes, but for the complexity, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the required condition (at least one of reporter_git_sha or reporter_app_version) beyond the schema's optional declaration, and clarifies the deprecation alias for visibility. This enhances understanding beyond the JSON 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?

The description clearly states the tool submits an issue to Neotoma, returns a guest_access_token for subsequent read-back, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue_status and add_issue_message by noting the token usage. It also mentions a deprecation alias, adding specificity.

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 instructs callers to provide at least one of reporter_git_sha or reporter_app_version, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or context for when not to use it.

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