get_issue_detail

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description goes further by exposing the exact error case when both or neither parameter is supplied, and the stale response and recovery path. It also explicitly states 'no files are written or modified', reinforcing and not contradicting the annotations.

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?

Each sentence adds value: purpose, safety, parameter constraint, error behavior, and recovery path are all covered without unnecessary repetition. The description is structured with front-loaded actionable information.

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 tool with two parameters, oneOf constraints, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: source of IDs, required exclusivity, error and stale states, resolution, and side-effect-free behavior. Nothing critical is omitted.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that clusterId and issueId come from the most recent check_project or check_files result and that exactly one must be supplied. It doesn't fully define what an issueId vs clusterId represents or how they appear, but the connection to the previous check calls provides meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns the full issue list') and clearly delimits the input ('for either one cluster ID or one issue ID'). It also ties the tool to the results of check_project or check_files, making it easy to distinguish from its siblings even without checking the schema.

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 explicitly places this tool after a check_project or check_files call and gives a concrete alternative when the result is stale: 'call check_project or check_files again to refresh.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use distinction.

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