evolve_issue_create

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it checks open/closed GitHub issues, a local ledger, and fingerprints before invoking `gh issue create`, and it records duplicate skips and successful files as events. This gives the agent a concrete picture of side effects, though it does not cover failure modes or auth prerequisites.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, with the dedup mechanics in the following two sentences. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, process, and side effects, and an output schema exists to document return values. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives or what credentials/prerequisites are needed, but for a simple three-parameter create operation with dedup behavior, the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not explain title, body, or labels. The parameter names are self-explanatory and the roadmap issue context hints at labels, yet no format, constraints, or expected content guidance is provided beyond what the schema already shows.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a reviewer roadmap issue through the mechanical dedup gate.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like evolve_apply_roadmap_issue by emphasizing creation and adds a unique detail (the dedup gate) that makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 clear context: this tool is used to create reviewer roadmap issues and is guarded by a dedup mechanism. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose and workflow are stated plainly enough that an agent can infer the intended use case.

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