github_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It wisely mentions the required token permissions and the possibility of a confirmation step, adding valuable context beyond the simple 'create' action. It does not cover rate limits or error responses, but the essentials are present.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by key prerequisites. No unnecessary words, perfectly structured for quick parsing.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the action, auth requirement, and confirmation behavior. The output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so return values are handled. The only minor gap is lack of detail on failure modes, but it remains complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, leaving the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new GitHub issue' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_issues and github_get_issue. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 clear usage context by specifying the requirement for a GITHUB_TOKEN with issue write permissions and noting that explicit confirmation may be needed per config. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, this is the only issue-creation tool among siblings, making the usage context sufficient.

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