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 burden. It discloses that status defaults to OPEN and can be set to other values, and that labels/assignees are not supported. However, it does not mention the return value, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a standard create operation, but with no annotations, the description could add more behavior context, so a 3 is warranted.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by requirements and limitations. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes useful information. This is an ideal concise structure.

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 simplicity, 5 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, required inputs, default status, and unsupported features. It doesn't mention return values, but for a straightforward create operation this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it restates 'requires title and description' and 'status defaults to OPEN' (both in schema), but does add the insight that labels and assignees are not supported, which is not in the schema. This slight addition justifies a 3, the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new issue in a GitFlic project.' The verb 'create' is specific and the resource is defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues or update_issue by focusing on creation, and also notes limitations (labels/assignees not supported), further differentiating it.

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 context on requirements ('Requires title and description') and exclusions ('Labels and assignees are not supported through this tool'). While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, it implies that for label/assignee support, a different tool must be used. This is clear usage guidance with an exclusion but no explicit alternative, so a 4 is appropriate.

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