get_issue_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates 'current issues' (not historical), but it does not disclose what happens if an issue ID is invalid, how results are paginated or returned, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is minimal beyond the core purpose.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. It conveys the essential scoping distinction in a compact, easy-to-parse structure.

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 read-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary use cases but omits details like response shape, error handling, and the relationship between the two parameters. Given the oneOf constraint and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a new agent.

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 0% description coverage, leaving the description to compensate. It adds meaning by linking clusterId to 'one cluster' and issueId to 'one current issue ID', clarifying the oneOf relationship. However, it does not explain formats, constraints, or the exact meaning of 'current' in parameter terms, so compensation is partial.

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 clearly states the tool returns current issues, scoped either by cluster or by a single issue ID. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'issues' are specific, and the two modes (cluster vs issue) are named, distinguishing it from siblings like ping or get_loop_status.

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: use this when you need current issues for one cluster or a specific issue ID. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools, nor does it explain how to choose between the two parameter modes beyond their presence in the schema.

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