get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Gets') and lists included fields (description, checklist, linked issues). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any restrictions (e.g., authentication, rate limits). Suitable but not thorough.

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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information, front-loaded with purpose.

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 single-issue retrieval tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and prerequisite. It names key fields returned. However, the lack of explanation for the boolean parameters slightly reduces 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `issue_key` parameter with an example, but does not describe `include_comments` or `include_checklist`. These optional booleans are left unexplained, creating a gap for correct invocation.

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's purpose: retrieving full details of a single issue by key. It provides an example key format and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issues. The verb 'Gets' and resource 'full details of a single issue' are specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool (need complete picture, have exact key) and recommends an alternative (use list_issues first if key is unknown). This provides clear guidance for selection among sibling tools.

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