get_issue

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or what happens if the issue is not found, which would be more transparent.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly conveys the purpose and the parameter. The example is concise and helpful without adding bulk.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description is adequately complete. The output schema is separate, so return values are not required in the description. It could mention error handling or explicit output shape, but the core functionality is well covered. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'public_id' parameter, but the tool description compensates by explaining it is the issue identifier and giving an example format (e.g. INC-0001). This is sufficient for a single, self-explanatory parameter, though a schema-level description would be ideal.

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's function: 'Get full details for an issue by public_id'. It specifies the resource (issue), the exact identifier needed (public_id), and even provides a format example (e.g. INC-0001). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues or issue_stats.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a public_id and need full details), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for using other tools. For example, it does not say to use search_issues when the ID is unknown. Some guidance on sibling tools would improve clarity.

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