redmine_get_issue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation read-only, notes there is no workflow validation, and explains that project.identifier is enriched from the project cache when available. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, though it says nothing about permissions or error behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clause, followed by a compact args block. Every sentence adds information, though the blank-line-separated sections are slightly airier than needed for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers both parameters, the read-only safety profile, and the cache-enrichment caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely — and it does: issue_id is described as a numeric Redmine issue id, and include is documented with its default value plus the non-obvious rule that an empty string falls back to the default. Both parameters gain meaning the schema does not supply.

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 verb and resource ("Fetch a single issue") and the singular scope distinguishes it from list/search siblings like redmine_search_issues and redmine_list_child_issues. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus redmine_search_issues, redmine_get_journals, or redmine_my_issues; usage is only implied by the word "single". The include-default note is a parameter detail, not a usage rule.

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