github_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and scope, but does not cover read-only nature, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the issue is not found.

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 very short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the operation name. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices meaningful content for brevity, making it barely adequate.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which is not described), the description fails to mention essential context like required identifiers (repo, issue number) or how the arguments parameter maps to the actual GitHub API. The tool appears to need more detail for correct invocation.

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 only parameter is 'arguments' with 0% schema description coverage. The description states it's a JSON string of arguments but does not specify what keys (e.g., owner, repo, issue_number) are required or optional, leaving the agent to guess the structure.

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 name 'get_issue' clearly indicates retrieving an issue, but the description only repeats the operation name and adds generic routing info. It does not explicitly state that it retrieves a specific GitHub issue or what it returns.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative GitHub tools like 'github_list_issues' or 'github_get_pull_request'. The description lacks any usage context or differentiation.

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