Get Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Retrieve', which aligns with annotations. No contradiction found, but no extra transparency added.

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-structured sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value: verb, noun, identifier, scope.

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 retrieval tool with good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the key inputs and action. It could optionally mention that the response includes full issue details, but the tool name and action imply that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'by IID' but does not define what an IID is or clarify the project_id parameter. Both required parameters lack any semantic enrichment.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('single issue') with a clear identifier ('by IID') and scope ('from a project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues and search_issues.

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 usage when you have a specific issue IID and project ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion conditions or scenarios.

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