get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output format (Markdown), enumerates the fields included, notes that only non-empty custom fields are returned, and references get_attachment for image handling. This is transparent about what the tool does and its default behavior (comments included). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but since it is a 'get' operation, it is reasonable to assume read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare statement.

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, well-structured paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, detailing the fields returned, the attachment list, and the comment behavior. It is slightly long but not wasteful, and the structure flows logically from general to specific. No redundancy or filler.

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 complexity, the description covers the essential return details, output format, and the relationship to get_attachment. Since an output schema exists, return values are not the description's responsibility. It addresses the main use case (full issue details) and the optional comment behavior. It stops short of describing error handling or authentication, but for a read-only getter with a rich schema, it is nearly complete.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it reiterates that comments are on by default, which matches the schema default. It does not introduce new parameter semantics or clarify anything not already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for one Jira issue as Markdown.' It enumerates the exact fields returned, making its scope immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_comments (which returns only comments) and get_issue_context (context-specific) by stating what it covers, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 context by listing what it returns and mentioning that images must be fetched via get_attachment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_comments or search_issues. The include_comments parameter hints that for just the ticket body you might set it False, but there is no explicit 'use X when Y' guidance. It provides enough to infer usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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