Assistant incorrectly claims it cannot file bug reports, despite having gh CLI / Bash access

Description

In a Claude Code session, when asked to file a bug report, the assistant responded that it "does not have a tool to file bug reports" and pointed the user to manually submit at github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues. When the user then explicitly said "file a bug," the assistant used its general Bash tool access (gh issue create, authenticated via the user's own gh auth) to file the issue directly — successfully creating https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/75958.

This is a self-capability-reporting inconsistency: the assistant has generic shell/CLI access that can accomplish the task, but initially described itself as unable to do it, implying the user had to do it manually. This could lead users to do redundant manual work, or to distrust the assistant's stated capabilities more broadly.

Expected behavior

The assistant should accurately reflect that it has Bash/gh CLI access and can file issues on the user's behalf (subject to the usual confirmation for actions visible to others / affecting shared state), rather than stating it "doesn't have a tool" for a task it can in fact perform via a general-purpose tool it does have.

Actual behavior

Assistant said: "I don't have a tool to file bug reports myself... the way to report this is: [link]" — then, when asked again, filed the report anyway via gh issue create in Bash.

Repro steps

1. Ask Claude Code (in a session with gh CLI authenticated) to file a bug report against a GitHub repo.
2. Observe it initially disclaims the ability to do so and suggests manual submission.
3. Ask again explicitly ("file a bug") — observe it then does so via Bash + gh issue create.

Environment

• Surface: Claude Code, session with Bash tool and authenticated gh CLI (gh auth status shows logged in).
• Related: filed as a consequence of investigating https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/75958 (broken MCP connector registry tools).