getIssueById

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the action without revealing what happens if the issue is not found, whether it tries all relays or stops at the first, or any error behavior. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a network-fetching tool.

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, efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb. However, the inclusion of '1621' without explanation could confuse users, slightly reducing clarity while still being concise.

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 fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to mention the return value, relay behavior when none are provided, error cases, or the meaning of '1621'. A more complete description would cover these aspects to help the agent understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that issueId is used to fetch the issue, but it does not explain the relays parameter at all—whether it is optional, what default behavior is, or how relay selection works. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic names.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'single issue event (1621)', and the identifier 'by id', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listIssues (which lists multiple issues) and getPullRequestById (different entity type).

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 usage for retrieving a single issue by its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as listIssues or getPullRequestById. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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