Get Issue

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

The description adds no behavioral insights beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation. It does not mention that the issue description can be excluded via the 'include_description' parameter to avoid large payloads, though the schema covers this. No contradiction with annotations.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (get by id) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could briefly mention the return type (full issue object), but the tool name and schema cover this context adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'issue_id' and 'include_description'.

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 the resource 'a Yandex Tracker issue by its id', making the tool's function obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'issue_create' or 'issue_get_comments' by focusing on the base issue object retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'issues_find' or 'issue_get_attachments' is provided. For a simple get-by-id tool, the lack of differentiation is acceptable but not helpful for an AI agent navigating many sibling tools.

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