Get Issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool gets an issue, without disclosing what fields are returned, whether notes are included, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The minimal phrasing leaves the agent without a clear picture of the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity, though perhaps too brief for full transparency.

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 get operation with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without an output schema or additional context about the return value, the agent lacks a complete picture of what to expect. The description is minimally sufficient but not richly informative.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover both parameters at 100% coverage (projectId and issueIid). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about how parameters relate or are used, so it provides no value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issue') with a scope ('from a project'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like gitlab_get_issues (plural) and gitlab_get_issue_notes by focusing on a single issue.

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 a single issue is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_issues or gitlab_get_issue_notes. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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