github_get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits, so the agent is left without important safety or effect information.

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 followed by a minimal parameter list. It contains no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise, though it sacrifices valuable explanatory detail.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description is incomplete for an agent: it offers no usage guidance, no behavioral transparency, and no parameter semantics beyond names. The output schema exists but does not replace missing context about when and why to use the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only lists parameter names without any elaboration. 'owner', 'repo', and 'issue_number' are somewhat self-explanatory, but 'session_name' is ambiguous and not explained in either the description or schema.

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 the tool gets detailed information about an issue, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from github_list_issues or github_get_pr, but the focus on a single issue with 'detailed information' makes it distinguishable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_issues or github_get_pr. No prerequisites, exclusions, or example scenarios are provided, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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