inspect_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must convey the tool's behavior. It indicates this is a read-only fetch operation by listing the data returned, but it doesn't mention any auth requirements, rate handling, or exactly how the output is structured. For a simple inspect tool with no annotation support, this is adequate but not rich.

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 verb and resource, then compactly lists the key detail categories. No word is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description's enumerated result categories give enough detail about what to expect. It does not explain repo naming conventions, but the self-explanatory parameter titles and output schema reduce the risk of incorrect 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. The description does not define what 'repo' should look like (e.g., owner/name) or the required format of 'issue_number'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already shows.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource: 'issue details', and enumerates the included content (assignees, state, labels, linked PRs, recent comments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_pr even though the description itself doesn't name the alternative.

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 makes the use case clear: when you need details about a given issue. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives, but the context of sibling tools plus the direct 'issue details' phrasing provides clear guidance for typical selection.

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