get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, response format, permissions, or what happens if the issue is not found. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and immediately states the resource and scope, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks important context. Since there is no output schema, the agent is not informed about the return structure or that it returns the full issue details. It also does not explain the relationship between project_id and issue_id or error cases. Given the minimal complexity, the description is under-specified for full completeness.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for both parameters ('Issue UUID' and 'Project UUID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the vague phrase 'by ID', which could refer to either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the details.

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 action (Get), the resource (a single issue), and the scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from list_issues, which retrieves multiple issues, and other issue-related tools like create_issue or update_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 you have a specific issue ID and need one issue's details, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_issues for retrieving multiple issues or search_workspace for searching. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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