Mooring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It documents valid values for action (list/create/update) and state (open/closed/all), but fails to disclose behavioral traits of the mutating operations—such as whether updates are destructive, if create requires specific permissions, or error conditions when updating non-existent issues.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args section. Every line provides necessary constraint information. The docstring format is functional and front-loaded, though slightly less polished than natural language prose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input parameters and their relationships. It adequately covers the multi-modal complexity (list/create/update) by documenting parameter requirements for each mode, though it could mention the existence of the output schema or typical response structures.

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 fully compensates by documenting all 6 parameters: repo format ('owner/name'), state options, action values, and conditional requirements ('required for create/update'). It adds critical semantic meaning entirely absent from the schema.

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 three supported operations (list, create, update) and the resource (GitHub issues). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling PR tools (gh_pr_create, gh_pr_list) or explain why issues are bundled into one tool while PRs are split across multiple tools.

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 Args section provides implied usage guidance by indicating which parameters are required for specific actions (e.g., 'required for create', 'for create or update'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer listing vs. creating, or warnings about when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for PRs).

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