close_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions optional inputs and return fields but omits side effects (e.g., notifications, irreversibility) and prerequisites (e.g., issue must be open). This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 concise (a few lines) and front-loads the main action. The bullet list for options is clear, but some space could be used to cover missing parameters. Still, it is well-structured overall.

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 complexity (5 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description lacks coverage of owner/repo default behavior and preconditions. It mentions return fields briefly, but overall completeness is low.

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 coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. It explains 'comment' and 'state_reason' adequately but omits 'owner' and 'repo' entirely, which are optional but essential for context. This leaves significant gaps.

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 'Close a GitHub issue', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_issue, update_pr) by focusing solely on closing.

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 implies usage for closing issues with optional comment/reason but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., update_pr) or mention preconditions like issue being open.

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