create_github_issue

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Create a new issue', providing no information about authentication requirements, potential duplicate creation on repeated calls, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves the agent without expectations beyond the basic mutation.

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, concise sentence that clearly names the operation and resource. It wastes no words and is immediately scannable, earning a top score for 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?

For a tool with this complexity, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the core action and the schema handles parameter details. However, it lacks any mention of return values (e.g., issue URL) or interaction with sibling tools, leaving some context incomplete for an agent without additional hints.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all five parameters (owner, repo, title, body, labels) individually documented. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic context for parameters, so it scores at the baseline of 3 as per the rubric.

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 action (create) and the target resource (a new issue in a GitHub repository), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as generate_issue or check_duplicate_issue, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer check_duplicate_issue first, or any context that would help an agent select this tool over generate_issue. It simply states the operation without usage context.

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