get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current' state nuance, suggesting the latest version, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling or return format. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It clearly communicates the verb, resource, and identifier formats without extraneous detail, earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it omits any mention of the 'view' parameter, whose enum values (compact/standard/full) may imply different response depths, and it does not clarify the behavior of 'current' in terms of versioning or archived issues. This leaves a minor but notable gap.

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 high (75%), setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces issue_id semantics by naming the identifier formats, but it does not explain the 'view' parameter (which lacks a schema description) or add meaning for project_ref and agent_session_handle beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'current issue record' and identifiers 'ULID or ISSUE-N display ID', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_issue_graph (graph) and list_issues (list). It leaves no doubt about the tool's primary function.

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 for fetching a single issue by its identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or sibling tool references are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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