Read Paperclip issue document

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that results are inline below a token threshold and otherwise returned as an immutable snapshot path. It also clarifies annotation loading behavior and the all_fields constraint, giving useful behavioral detail beyond readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: purpose and output format first, result-delivery behavior second, and parameter semantics third. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the fetch semantics, Markdown output, snapshot-vs-inline behavior, and important boolean parameters, which is strong for a read tool with no output schema. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance against sibling read tools and the undocumented meaning of issue_id/key.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining include_annotations, include_annotation_comments, and all_fields. However, the required parameters issue_id and key receive no semantic explanation beyond their names and schema constraints.

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 opens with 'Fetch one issue document as Markdown,' naming a specific verb, resource, and output format. It reads as a singular read operation and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like paperclip_document_put and paperclip_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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus paperclip_raw, paperclip_documents, or paperclip_issue. The only hint is the phrase 'one issue document,' which implies usage but does not rule out alternatives or provide selection criteria.

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