octri_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral value by explaining the semantics of resolved=true (de-minified against an uploaded source map) and what its absence implies about missing symbols. It omits permissions, error behavior, and any read-only/safety context.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, but the first is a sentence fragment and the semantic explanation of 'resolved' is placed before the core action is clearly stated, weakening front-loading.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-shape burden. It names the top-level payload and one field but leaves the structure of stack frames/events, pagination, and the required issue_id identifier unexplained, and the non-defaulted parameter is undocumented.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema but issue_id has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required issue_id.

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 identifies the resource ('one issue') and its payload ('stack frames and recent events'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling octri_list_issues. However, it is a verbless fragment ('One issue with...') rather than a clear statement of what the tool does, and it never explicitly names the retrieval action or contrasts with the list sibling.

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 is given. It does not state that this is the single-issue fetch to pair with octri_list_issues, nor any prerequisites or conditions under which to prefer it over alternatives.

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