create_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, permission requirements, or what happens upon creation (e.g., idempotency, error states). This is insufficient.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It front-loads the action but provides no additional details, making it minimally adequate.

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 complexity of the tool (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the required parameters 'platform' and 'project_id', nor the return value structure. The agent would be left guessing.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description adds no context for the 8 parameters, failing to explain what 'title', 'kwargs', 'platform', etc., mean or how they relate. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'issue', making the primary purpose obvious. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'close_issue', though 'create' is distinct enough. The scope ('in a project') is vague but acceptable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or 'close_issue'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid platform and project, or when not to use it.

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