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. It correctly identifies the operation as fetching/reading, implying non-destructive behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any auth requirements or rate limits. The clarification about index vs id is helpful, but overall transparency is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and key parameter detail, the second explains the use case. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 read operation, the description is complete: it identifies what the tool does, how to specify the issue (index), and what data can be retrieved. No output schema exists, but the description implies the return includes body, labels, assignee, and milestone, which is sufficient context.

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 schema already documents parameters. The description adds significant value by clarifying that the 'index' parameter is the number from the issue URL (e.g., #42), not the internal id. This prevents confusion and adds meaning beyond the schema's description of 'Issue number'.

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 fetches one issue by its index (the number shown in URL), distinguishes from internal id, and lists what can be read: full body, labels, assignee, milestone. This separates it from siblings like list_issues or search_issues.

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 explicitly says 'Use to read the full body, labels, assignee, or milestone of a single issue.' This provides clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough to guide the agent.

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