get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope ('event:read scope'), which is useful context for authentication. However, it does not describe other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the issue_id is invalid, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential context (scope requirement). There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence earns its place by providing necessary information.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, scope requirement, and details included. However, it lacks information on output format or error cases, which would be helpful for full completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'issue_id' well-documented in the schema as 'The ID of the issue to retrieve'. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete details of a specific Glitchtip issue'), including what details are included ('latest event and comments'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_issues (which lists multiple issues) and list_events (which lists events generally).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get complete details of a specific Glitchtip issue') and includes a prerequisite ('requires event:read scope'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like list_issues for listing multiple issues.

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