get_create_issue_meta

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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state authentication requirements, response characteristics, filtering behavior, or any side effects.

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 only one short sentence and is technically concise, but it is under-specified to the point of tautology. It provides no structured, usable content beyond repeating the tool name.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling tool set, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what 'create issue metadata' includes, how the parameters constrain the result, or how this tool relates to create_issue and get_edit_issue_meta.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already documents each parameter sufficiently.

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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ('Get create issue metadata'), adding no new information about what the metadata actually contains or its scope. It does not meaningfully differentiate from siblings like get_edit_issue_meta beyond the word 'create'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_edit_issue_meta, get_fields, or create_issue. The description does not mention that this is useful before creating an issue or how it differs from related metadata endpoints.

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