Get issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's only job is to add context — and it adds none. It also does not explain why a 'get' tool exposes mutation-flavored parameters (title, description, state_event, assignee_ids), which an agent could easily misread as an update path.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is technically efficient. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate restraint.

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?

With 14 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema and no annotation detail about return shape, a four-word description is completely inadequate for correct invocation. The agent has no way to know required identifiers or pagination behavior from the definition.

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% across 14 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and supplies nothing. It never clarifies issue_iid vs project_id vs group_id, nor the roles of page, per_page, max_pages, or the opaque 'data' object.

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?

"Get a single issue" states a specific verb and resource and implicitly contrasts with list operations like gitlab_get_issues. However, it does not distinguish itself from other issue-related siblings (gitlab_get_group_issues, gitlab_update_issue, gitlab_delete_issue) or state what identifies the issue (project_id/group_id plus issue_iid).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that a project_id or group_id plus issue_iid is required to target one issue, and that gitlab_get_issues should be used for listing.

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