get_issue_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'Return the current workflow state,' indicating a read-only operation. No side effects, permissions, or error conditions are mentioned, which is acceptable for a simple query but could be more explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.

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 simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, input hints, and differentiation from siblings. It could mention output structure details or error handling, but overall it is sufficient for the task.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for 'issue_id' by mentioning 'id or identifier,' but does not explain the 'workspace' parameter. Given only two parameters, partial coverage leaves a 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 specifies the action ('Return'), the resource ('workflow state for one issue'), and the input ('id or identifier'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_issue' by labeling itself a 'minimal-fields variant for status-driven automations,' which clarifies its unique role.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'get_issue,' noting it is a 'convenience tool' and 'minimal-fields variant,' implying use when only status is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives.

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