issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, and mutation behavior. It does mention sanitization and not inventing facts, but it never says whether the tool submits to GitHub, writes a file, or is otherwise read-only or destructive.

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 front-loaded with the artifact and then lists actionable content requirements in a compact paragraph. Most clauses earn their place, though the long parenthetical telemetry checklist could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits core behavioral context: whether this tool files an issue, drafts a report, or performs a write action. The missing explanation for issueUrl, which is not in the schema, further leaves the agent with unresolved questions.

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 67%, so the schema documents two of three parameters, and the description does not add clear meaning for context, error_message, or include_doctor beyond what is already in the schema. It also references "issueUrl" verbatim even though no such parameter exists in the input schema, which creates confusion.

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 identifies the artifact as a "Sanitized bug report with GitHub link" but never states the action: whether the tool creates, drafts, formats, or submits an issue. It is not a tautology because it adds the bug-report artifact and GitHub-link scope, but the verb is missing.

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?

It gives content instructions for what a good bug report should include, but provides no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as doctor, consult, or review. There is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or alternative tool routing.

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