get_actionable_issue

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses normalization behavior (template scaffolding stripped) and lists output fields, adding value beyond schema. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or error conditions.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists key details. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output. It lists the key fields, and the schema provides the full structure.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters 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 clearly states the tool fetches one issue normalized for triage, listing the specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_new_issues, which lists 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 implies usage for fetching a single issue for triage. Context from sibling tools (list_new_issues for listing, get_claim_status, get_repo_context) helps differentiate, but no explicit when-not or alternatives are given.

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