redmineflux_core_get_issue

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, potential errors, permissions, or return behavior beyond 'full details', and while the include parameter lists extras, it does not disclose any side effects or edge cases.

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 extremely concise, with a single clear purpose sentence followed by a well-organized argument list. Every line adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly specifies the input parameters and the tool's purpose, though it lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuances like error handling, which are minor gaps given the simplicity.

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 description fully explains both parameters: issue_id as 'the issue number' and include as 'comma-separated extras' with a list of valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which has no descriptions.

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 'Get full details of a specific issue' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issues (listing) and create_issue/update_issue (mutating).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose this over list_issues or get_project. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context without explicit direction.

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