get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Return') and explains what data is included, plus the performance implication of include_history. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a list of included details, then a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the scope, parameter semantics, and performance guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns and how to adjust the optional parameter.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. include_history gets extra semantic context ('also fetch the comments and change log', 'Turn this off for long issues'), which is valuable for correct usage.

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: 'Return every detail of an issue.' It specifies the resource (issue) and the action (get), and lists the included components (description, attachments, relations, watchers, subtasks), distinguishing it from list_issues and other sibling tools.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the include_history parameter, noting it can be turned off for long issues when only current values matter. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to infer when to use get_issue over list_issues or update_issue.

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