get_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond that: the body is clipped to 4000 characters, which warns the agent about truncated content. It does not disclose what else is returned or whether errors surface for missing issues.

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?

A single short sentence with the key behavioral caveat parenthesized immediately after the resource. Nothing is wasted and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it mentions the issue and its clipped body but not other likely fields (state, labels, comments, PR linkage). For a simple three-parameter read it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response shape.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains owner, repo, and number including that number may be an issue or pull request number. The description adds no further parameter meaning, not even confirming that all three are required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one issue') and the qualifier 'one' implicitly separates it from list_issues and search_issues, which return collections. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify how it relates to get_pull_request, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over search_issues for a known number, and nothing explains the choice against get_pull_request even though the schema says the number can be an issue or pull request number. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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