create_issue

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

No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the action 'create'. With no annotations provided, the description should inform the agent about potential side effects (e.g., whether the issue is created immediately, idempotency, rate limits). The description fails to add value beyond the tool name and schema.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to convey necessary context; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, required owner/repo/title) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or usage context (e.g., that owner and repo must already exist). A minimal description should at least cover the core required parameters and expected outcome.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or constraints of any parameter (e.g., what format the body should follow, that labels can be a list of strings). With such low coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and types alone.

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 'Create a new issue in a repository' uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('issue'), clearly indicating the tool's action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_issues or get_issue, which could cause confusion. A more precise scope, such as specifying 'GitHub repository' or mentioning allowed fields, would improve clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like list_issues or get_issue. The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as authentication requirements or that the repository must exist, leaving the AI agent without context for proper invocation.

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