Get Redmine Issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'get' and lists optional data includes, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then succinctly lists optional additions. Every word contributes to the meaning with no unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. It briefly mentions include functionality, but lacks any note on error handling or permissions. This is acceptable for a straightforward getter, though not exhaustive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It restates the include enum values and clarifies that id is the issue identifier, but it adds little beyond what the schema's enum names already imply. The meaning of each include option (e.g., what 'relations' entails) is not elaborated.

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 a specific action (get) on a specific resource (Redmine issue) identified by id. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like search_issues, which imply searching rather than direct retrieval.

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 conveys clear usage context by specifying retrieval by id and the option to include related data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_issues or define when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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