gh_issue_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful implementation detail ('Body is passed via a temp file') that helps the agent understand shell quoting is unnecessary. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or response behavior, which are relevant for a mutation tool. The added detail is useful but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences: the first states the primary action, the second highlights a critical implementation detail. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with purpose. No redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key quirk (temp file) and leaves parameter details to the schema. It does not address usage exclusions or alternative tools, which would push it to 5, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's temp-file note adds practical meaning to the 'body' parameter beyond the schema's 'issue body Markdown' — it explains how the value is handled and why shell quoting is not an issue. This enriches parameter understanding, justifying a 4.

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 'Create a GitHub issue' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gh_issue_comment, gh_issue_edit, and gh_pr_create. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 context is clear: use this to create a GitHub issue. While no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools are named, the verb 'create' and the sibling names make the usage context evident. The schema note about not relying on the default repo adds a practical prerequisite, but this lives in the schema rather than the description.

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