get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states "Read-only", which is a valuable safety disclosure for an agent. It also indicates that the full history is returned; output schema can cover return-structure details.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the read-only and token-efficiency notes add valuable context without padding.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is that the summary alternative is only referenced obliquely as "the whole summary" rather than explicitly pointing to the get_summary sibling.

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 coverage is 100%: the single param issue_id already has a clear description with format guidance (zero-padded 4-digit ID). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: "Read one issue's full history". It also signals read-only semantics and hints at a contrast with the broader summary, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool (get_summary), so sibling differentiation is present but not fully explicit.

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 phrase "token-efficient vs the whole summary" gives useful context: this tool is the lighter-weight way to get one issue's history instead of the full summary. It does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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