get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detailed information' and does not mention error behavior, permissions, response format, or what happens if the issue is not found. The examples also mislead by suggesting the ID is a human-readable key, contradicting the schema's note about UUIDs, which could cause failures.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose, but the examples are wasted space and misleading. A concise description should not contain counterproductive example values that conflict with the schema.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description should cover error handling, authentication/prerequisites, and return value expectations. It does none of this, and the misleading ID examples create a significant completeness gap. The schema partially compensates, but the description still falls short.

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 fully covers the issueId parameter, describing it as an internal UUID and explicitly noting it is NOT a key like 'ENG-123'. However, the tool description adds no useful parameter semantics and instead uses the exact wrong format in its examples, actively misguiding the agent. This fails to add value and creates contradiction.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific issue by its ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_issues or update_issue. However, the examples use human-readable keys like 'ENG-123' while the schema clarifies the parameter expects an internal UUID, slightly muddying the resource identity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for a specific issue ID but does not mention that search_issues is for finding issues by criteria or that get_my_issues returns issues for the current user. There is no when-not-to-use information.

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