get_issue_using_readable_identifier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get a specific issue' but does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or describe any side effects, rate limits, or return behavior beyond the action itself.

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?

Two sentences suffice: the first states the purpose and the second unpacks the identifier format with a concrete example. No filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward get-by-identifier tool with two simple, fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It lacks details about response shape, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. A mention of what happens when the issue does not exist would strengthen it.

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% because both parameters already have descriptions that include the exact same FIRST-123 example. The description restates this mapping rather than adding new semantic information, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get a specific issue using its readable identifier.' It also clarifies the identifier format with concrete examples ('FIRST-123', 'ABC-123'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from list_project_issues, which fetches multiple issues.

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 such as list_project_issues or get_issue_comments. It never states what conditions warrant this tool or mentions any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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