Get issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by noting that comments and attachments are included by default and that attachments are URLs, which is useful contextual behavior not present in 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?

Two information-dense sentences: the first enumerates the returned fields, and the second gives a cross-tool instruction for viewing attachments. No redundant words or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly. It specifies what fields are included, mentions default behaviors, and points to the reading tool for attachments, making it complete for a read-only get operation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies that 'every comment' and 'every attached screenshot/file' correspond to include_notes and include_attachments defaults, but it doesn't add further syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 it returns a full issue including description, labels, assignees, milestone, and by default comments and attachment URLs. This specific enumeration differentiates it from siblings like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_get_merge_request.

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 use when you need the complete issue with all comments and attachments, and provides a downstream pointer to gitlab_read_attachment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gitlab_list_issues or mention when not to use this tool.

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