get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. 'Read-only' is a useful safety hint, but it does not disclose what happens on missing issue, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds some context beyond the name, but not full transparency.

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?

Single sentence, 8 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant material.

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?

Output schema exists to cover return values, and description covers purpose and read-only nature. However, it lacks usage guidance, edge-case behavior, and any notes on when not to use it. For a simple getter it's adequate but minimal.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'repository and number' but does not elaborate on owner vs repo, or the exact meaning of issue_number. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get one GitHub issue by repository and number', which is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues (search) or get_repository (repo). The read-only nature is also mentioned.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_issues or get_pull_request. The description implies you need a repo and issue number, but does not state exclusions or provide context for choosing this tool over others.

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