create_issue

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) already convey. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or idempotency implications, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's runtime behavior.

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?

While the description is short, it is underspecified rather than concise. A single sentence that restates the tool name provides no additional value, making it an inefficient use of the description field.

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 has five required parameters and an output schema, the description should at least indicate the creation context (e.g., repository, required fields). The minimal text leaves the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly, even though output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails entirely to explain the five required parameters (repo_owner, repo_name, title, body, labels). The agent must infer meanings from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Creates a new issue.' clearly states the action (create) and resource (issue). It is concise and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'create_pr', missing an opportunity to specify the scope (e.g., GitHub issue).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_issue' or 'create_pr'. An agent would have no context for selecting this tool over others in the sibling list.

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