get_issue_by_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves an issue, but does not mention read-only status, required permissions, return format, or side effects. This is insufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes an example. Every word is useful, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite the output schema covering return values, the description omits crucial information about the expand parameter and does not explicitly differentiate usage from the sibling retrieve_issue tool. Given the schema has no descriptions for parameters, the description should have explained them, making it incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the identifier parameter (human identifier) through the example. The expand parameter is completely unexplained. The description provides minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, falling short of adequately explaining both parameters.

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 tool retrieves an issue by its human identifier, distinguished from alternative retrieval methods by using the term 'identificador humano' and providing a concrete example (CKTPC-838). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tool retrieve_issue, which likely uses an internal identifier.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a human-readable identifier) without explicitly mentioning alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage over other retrieval tools but does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives.

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