redmine_get_issue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval rather than a mutation, and the listed fields describe the response content. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple fetch-by-ID operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It opens with the action and then lists the useful response fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, this description gives enough for an agent to know what will be returned. It could mention behavior on missing issues or the exact response envelope, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

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 100%: the issue_id parameter is fully documented as 'The Redmine issue ID'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed information about a Redmine issue') and enumerates key fields (description, status, priority, assigned user, comments). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_get_issue_tree or redmine_get_issues_by_status, even without naming 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?

The description implies the primary use case: when you need detailed information about a single issue by ID. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, preventing a 5.

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