github_issues_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., 404 if issue not found), rate limits, or that it returns a single issue object. The description is too brief to be transparent.

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 extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but may be too terse. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could include more helpful context without becoming verbose.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error scenarios, or related operations. It only says 'Get an issue', leaving the agent without guidance on what to expect.

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?

All three parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) are described in the input schema with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 the action 'Get' and the resource 'issue', clearly indicating it retrieves a specific issue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like github_issues_create or github_issues_list, though it could specify that it fetches by issue number.

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?

No guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., github_issues_list for multiple issues, or github_pulls_get for pull requests). The description lacks context for appropriate use.

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