get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read operation ('Get') and mentions 'full detail,' but does not specify what that includes, error behavior, permissions, or any side-effect-free assurance. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the key info is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. However, the description leaves 'full detail' ambiguous and gives no hint about response structure or error cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context is needed for the agent to know what to expect, especially compared to list_issues which might also return issue data.

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 50% (only workspace_id has a description). The description adds no parameter information. Since the required id is self-evident and workspace_id is already described in the schema, the description does not need to compensate heavily, but it also adds zero value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('one issue'), clarifying with '(task)' and adding 'full detail' to indicate comprehensive retrieval. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_issues (plural, listing) and search_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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided, but the phrase 'one issue' implies use for retrieving a single issue's full data as opposed to listing or searching. No alternative tools are named, making the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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