seerr_get_issue

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral details such as the output format, possible error conditions, or permission requirements. It simply restates the tool name, contributing nothing beyond the annotation.

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 and free of fluff, but it is under-specified. It is concise in word count but sacrifices necessary detail, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that clarifies the tool's purpose and usage.

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 simple schema (one param) and presence of an output schema, a minimal description might be acceptable, but this one lacks domain context—it doesn't explain what an 'issue' is or how the returned data is structured. This leaves the agent to infer too much, especially among many closely related issue tools.

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 schema has one parameter, issue_id, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description 'Get issue' adds no meaning about the parameter—it doesn't clarify what the ID refers to, what format it should be, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 'Get issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the retrieval of a single issue by ID. It distinguishes itself from 'list_issue' by the singular 'issue' and the required issue_id parameter, though it doesn't explicitly state that it fetches a single item.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seerr_list_issue (to list issues) or seerr_set_issue_status (to modify). The description gives no context about its role relative to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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