get_issue_or_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate. However, nothing is said about authentication requirements, rate limits, or possible errors (e.g., non-existent issue number). The description is minimally sufficient but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler, no redundancy. 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 get-by-number tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It could optionally hint at the nature of the returned details, but the tool's name and purpose make this largely inferable. Minor gap: no mention of response format, but this is not critical for a standard retrieval.

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% – all three parameters (repo, owner, issue_number) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('details for a specific issue or pull request'), and the key parameter ('by its number'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_issues_and_prs, which lists multiple items, and get_repository_details, which targets the repo itself. No ambiguity.

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 use when an agent needs details for a single issue or PR given its number, but does not explicitly contrast with list_issues_and_prs or mention any conditions or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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