Get Issue

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it is consistent with it. No contradictions, but no additional disclosure of return behavior or potential large payloads (which is only implicitly covered in the schema).

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 of nine words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero waste; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only getter with full annotations, an output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description is sufficient. It could mention that this is the main issue retrieval versus sub-resource tools, but the output schema and sibling names provide enough context for a capable agent.

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 100%: both issue_id and include_description have detailed descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description does not need to compensate.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('Yandex Tracker issue'), and lookup method ('by its id'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like issue_get_comments or issue_get_url, so it is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for related resources such as comments or links. The only usage hint ('use only when needed') appears in the schema for include_description, not in the description itself.

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