get_issue_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently details the return content (event trace, triage info, file/line details) and the 'Get' wording signals a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly state non-modification or error behavior, but for a getter this is adequate.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds meaningful specifics. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and expected return fields well. It doesn't mention related tools or potential errors, but the essentials for correct invocation and result understanding are present.

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%, with both parameters already described ('The Coverity Issue ID (CID)' and 'The stream name or ID containing the issue'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a Coverity defect by CID', and enumerates what's included (event trace, triage information, file/line details). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_issues, which would locate issues rather than fetch full detail for one.

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 conveys clear use context: call this when you have a specific CID and want comprehensive defect detail. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer search_issues, but the intent is clear from the wording.

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