create_new_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '建立新的' (create new) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It only states that it returns a '建立結果訊息' (creation result message) without explaining what that 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 bullet-like formatting for parameters. While somewhat lengthy due to the 10 parameters, every sentence earns its place by providing essential parameter semantics. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter explanations dominate the description.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks critical behavioral context. It doesn't explain authentication needs, error handling, or what the return message contains. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but other aspects of tool behavior remain undocumented.

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 compensates excellently by explaining all 10 parameters in detail. It clarifies optional vs required parameters, provides Chinese translations, and most importantly documents the exclusive choice relationships (二選一/三選一) between alternative parameter groups (tracker_id/tracker_name, priority_id/priority_name, assigned_to_id/assigned_to_name/assigned_to_login) that aren't apparent from the schema alone.

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 as '建立新的 Redmine 議題' (create new Redmine issue), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'add_issue_note' or 'update_issue_content', which are related but distinct operations on existing issues rather than creating new ones.

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. While it's obvious this creates new issues, there's no mention of prerequisites (like needing valid project/tracker IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing issues), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_issue_content' for modifications.

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