Get issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the stack trace is capped at the first 15 frames, the latest occurrence carries request context (URL, method, status, host, service), and occurrences are bucketed over the retention period. It does not mention latency, payload size, or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource before the enumerated payload. The middle sentence is dense but each clause maps to a distinct output component. Slight redundancy between the second and third sentences (both reference how the issue was listed) keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still names the main result components, and annotations carry the safety profile. The dependency on tideways_list_issues for a valid id/type is made explicit. Missing only edge-case guidance such as behavior for an invalid id or type mismatch.

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%, so every parameter (including the detail and project enums) is already documented in the schema. The description's "Pass the id and the type the issue was listed under" largely restates the schema text for issueId and type, adding workflow framing but little new syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one issue") and explicitly scopes it against the sibling it comes from ("from tideways_list_issues"), then enumerates the depth of data returned. An agent can distinguish this from tideways_list_issues and tideways_get_transaction without opening a schema.

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?

"Use to point at the failing code, rank the affected endpoints, and say when the issue started, peaked or stopped" gives concrete use cases, and the workflow dependency on tideways_list_issues is stated twice. No when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g. get_transaction) are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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