accelo_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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID is not found, or rate limits. For a tool with zero structured behavioral coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before listing args. The arg lines are somewhat redundant with the schema but add a small amount of naming clarity without bloat.

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?

For a simple single-record getter this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description should say more about the 'fields' format and what is returned. It is the minimum viable level for a tool of this complexity.

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 does briefly name both parameters ('id: Issue ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'), giving minimal meaning, but 'Additional fields to return' is vague and does not explain the field-list syntax or format expected by the Accelo API.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single issue (ticket) by ID'), and the parenthetical clarifies the issue/ticket synonym, which is genuinely useful. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like accelo_list_issues or accelo_count_issues, but 'single' and 'by ID' implicitly convey the retrieval-by-identifier scope.

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, no mention of alternatives to accelo_list_issues when the ID is unknown, and no prerequisites or auth requirements. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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