github_create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an issue but doesn't mention what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new issue') and specifies the context ('in a repository'), making it immediately clear and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it differs from sibling tools like github_update_issue. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata mean the description should provide more contextual information to be complete.

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%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Issue title', 'Issue body (markdown supported)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding. However, since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like github_create_comment or github_create_repo by specifying 'issue' rather than other GitHub entities. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with github_update_issue, which handles modifications rather than creation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention github_update_issue for modifying existing issues, github_list_issues for viewing issues, or github_create_comment for adding comments. There's also no information about prerequisites like repository access or authentication requirements.

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