get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'patch information if available', which hints at conditional data, but doesn't describe error handling (e.g., what happens if issue_id is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function and scope, the second details the parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or response structure, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'issue_id' with its type and purpose, adding clear meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific vulnerability issue by its ID'), and mentions 'including patch information if available' which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issues_by_vuln_class' or 'search_vulnerabilities' which might retrieve multiple issues differently.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issues_by_vuln_class' or 'search_vulnerabilities'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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