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 mentions 'full details' but does not disclose what fields are returned, permission requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond a basic read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key functionality without extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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?

The description does not explain the return structure or error behavior, which is important given the lack of an output schema. It hints at 'full details' but is vague. For a simple get operation, the context is adequate but not complete.

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%, with both parameters described in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optionally including related data,' which corresponds to the include parameter, but does not elaborate on the specifics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'Gets' and the resource 'full details of a single issue by its numeric ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues or search that return multiple issues. The optional inclusion of related data is also specified.

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 indicates that the tool gets a single issue with optional related data, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_issues, search, or get_issue_agile_data. No guidance is given on when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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