sassy_ghq_issue

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

Annotations already establish mutation and non-idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires a GitHub token (GITHUB_TOKEN or GITHUB_PERSONAL_ACCESS_TOKEN) and returns the created issue as JSON. This is useful behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool, though it doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 dense but well organized: core behavior first, then required/optional parameters with an example, then token requirement, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and no information is redundant with the schema.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is complete: all parameters explained, defaults given, label encoding clarified, auth requirement stated, return value mentioned, and alternative tools named. An agent can call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly identifies required owner/repo/title, documents body's empty-string default, and explains that labels is a comma-separated string converted to a label array with a concrete example. Every parameter is meaningfully covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'creates a GitHub issue in the given repo'. It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'github_full sassy_gh_create_issue' by framing itself as the 'lean daily-driver create path'.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use the github_full tool for assignees/milestones/other fields, use sassy_ghq_issues to find existing issues first, and use sassy_gh_add_issue_comment for comments. It also states required fields, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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