get_issue_detail

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: an unknown/expired checkId or missing issue/cluster yields a status: "stale" response rather than an error, and supplying both or neither ID returns an argument error. These are behaviors not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then error behavior; nothing is buried. The second sentence ('Read-only; no files are written or modified') largely restates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the one mildly redundant element.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still adds the critical edge cases: mutual-exclusion enforcement and the stale-status-instead-of-error path. For a 3-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has to carry the load, and it explains the key semantic: checkId is required and the clusterId/issueId pair is a mutual-exclusion choice whose violation is an argument error. It does not state expected value formats (e.g., ID shape) or what an ID literally is, so the compensation is solid but not exhaustive.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full issue list') plus the scoping key ('for either one cluster ID or one issue ID for a specific checkId'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The subject matter is distinct from diagnostic-snapshot siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It states the invocation constraint (checkId required, exactly one of clusterId/issueId) and the error outcome of violating it, which is useful routing information. However, it never says when to reach for clusterId vs issueId or when to prefer a sibling tool such as get_diagnostic_snapshot or get_live_diagnostics, so usage is only implied.

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