create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool returns the issue number and URL, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., invalid repo), or rate limits. This is adequate but lacks some context for a mutation 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 concise: three sentences covering purpose, when to use, required inputs, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information or filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (number and URL). It also covers the core behavior, required parameters, and typical use cases. It does not mention error scenarios or edge cases, but for a simple create-issue tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its purpose and outcome.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions, patterns, and examples for all four parameters. The description adds little beyond stating that owner, repo, and title are required and body is optional, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as creating an issue in a specific GitHub repository using the specific verbs 'Abre un issue' (open/create an issue). It distinguishes from siblings like close_issue, create_pull_request, and create_repository by focusing solely on issue creation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user wants to report a problem, suggest a task, or open an issue. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for closing issues) nor does it explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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