github_issues_get_parent

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get parent issue', implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether it requires authentication, returns null if no parent, or any side effects. The description is too sparse.

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 very concise at three words, but may be too terse. It lacks structure or front-loading of essential context. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return value or behavior. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., the parent issue object) or handle edge cases. Incomplete for a retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions (e.g., 'owner', 'repo', 'issue_number'). No enrichment of parameter semantics.

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 'Get parent issue' clearly indicates the action and resource, implying retrieval of the parent issue for a given issue. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_issues_get, which also retrieves issues. The specific context of 'parent issue' (e.g., sub-issues) is implied but not elaborated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_issues_get or github_issues_add_sub_issue. Doesn't specify prerequisites (issue must have a parent) or conditions for appropriate use.

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