close_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '關閉議題' implies a mutation/write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the closure is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits/constraints. The return value description ('關閉結果訊息') is vague about what the result message contains.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal text to convey essential information. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first states the tool's function, the next three explain parameters, and the final one describes the return. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters well, but lacks important behavioral context (permissions, side effects, error conditions) and has a vague return description. Given the complexity of issue management systems, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'issue_id: 議題 ID', 'notes: 關閉備註（可選）', and 'done_ratio: 完成百分比（預設 100%）'. The description clarifies that notes is optional and done_ratio defaults to 100%, adding valuable semantic context beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose: '關閉議題（設定為已完成狀態）' which translates to 'Close issue (set to completed status)'. It specifies the verb ('close') and resource ('issue') with the specific action of setting to completed status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue_status' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that handle issue modifications (update_issue_status, assign_issue, add_issue_note), but the description doesn't indicate when close_issue is appropriate versus other status updates or whether there are prerequisites for closing an issue.

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