create_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states what the tool does but omits important behavior such as authentication requirements, whether it creates the issue immediately, how it handles optional labels/assignees, or what the response contains.

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 with no unnecessary filler or redundancy. It communicates the core function efficiently.

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 6-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions, this description is far too minimal. It does not explain what kind of inputs are expected or how optional fields like labels and assignees behave, making it necessary for the agent to infer critical details.

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 the undocumented parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters, their meaning, format, or how labels and assignees are represented, leaving the agent without key information.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('a new issue in a GitHub repository'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue, list_issues, and add_issue_comment.

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 intended use is implicitly clear: use this when you need to create an issue in a repository. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, relying on the name and obvious context.

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