tea_issue_reopen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (reopen) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, behavior when the issue is already open, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a minimal disclosure.

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: 'Reopen a closed issue'. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks contextual information about when to use it, potential side effects, and how it relates to sibling tools. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context, making the description incomplete for an agent.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (repo and index) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, which already explains 'Issue number to reopen' and 'Repository path'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Reopen') and the resource ('a closed issue'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. While it implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like tea_issue_close, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scope, so it falls 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any contextual framing or mention of related tools like tea_issue_view or tea_issue_close.

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