redmine_get_issue

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only — no validation, no caching.' This goes beyond what annotations would typically provide (annotations were absent) and clearly informs the agent about safety (no side effects) and behavior (no built-in caching).

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose, then a well-structured Args section. No superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects), the presence of an output schema, and the coverage of read-only behavior and parameter semantics, the description is complete. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: issue_id is a numeric Redmine issue id, and include is a comma-separated list with a documented default. It clarifies that an empty string uses the default includes, providing critical usage detail not in 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 'Fetch a single issue.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_list_issues (multiple issues) or redmine_update_issue (mutating).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicit for fetching a single issue by ID, the description lacks contextual advice such as 'Use this to retrieve a specific issue after searching with redmine_search_issues.'

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