gitea_get_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to confirm this is a read-only operation (despite the 'Get' verb), does not describe the return format, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no behavioral context.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata rather than descriptive content, slightly reducing the signal-to-noise ratio. The core message is front-loaded with the verb.

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 4 parameters with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations for 3 of 4 parameters, return value structure, and error handling. For a retrieval tool with no structured metadata, the description needs to do significantly more work.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. It references 'by number' which maps to issue_number, but provides no semantics for 'site' (Gitea instance URL?), 'owner' (user/org name?), or 'repo' (repository name?), leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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 tool 'Get[s] details of a specific issue by number', providing a specific verb (Get), resource (issue), and scope (specific by number). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like gitea_list_issues (plural retrieval) and gitea_create_issue (mutation) by emphasizing singular retrieval by identifier.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'by number' implies prerequisite knowledge of the issue number, there is no mention of when to prefer gitea_list_issues (when searching) or how this relates to gitea_update_issue.

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