create_issue

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. Annotations already indicate non-readonly, but the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or constraints. It simply repeats the creation action.

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 extremely concise, the description is under-specified and lacks necessary detail. Conciseness should not sacrifice meaningful content; a single sentence that adds no value is not effective 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?

Despite having a rich schema and an output schema (not shown), the description omits return value details, side effects, and usage context. For a creation tool, more is needed to convey expected behavior and results.

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 must explain parameter meaning, but it provides nothing. The 5 parameters (repo_owner, repo_name, title, body, labels) are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.

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.' is a tautology that restates the tool name without any additional differentiation. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'create_pr', and provides no specific verb-resource context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over others.

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