sassy_ghq_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only states the primary action and label format. It does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, permissions, or response behavior, leaving a significant gap 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 extremely brief and front-loaded, with the label format note earning its place. While minimal, it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 5-parameter create operation with no annotations, the description lacks important context like required owner/repo semantics, authentication, and relationship to sibling issue tools. Even though an output schema exists, the operation's preconditions and side effects are unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate; it only specifies that labels are comma-separated. Parameters like owner, repo, title, and body have no additional guidance beyond their names, leaving required inputs partially underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('an issue'), clearly identifying the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sassy_ghq_issues, but the singular/plural naming and action verb make the purpose apparent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sassy_ghq_issues for listing. It merely states the action without prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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