redmine_get_issue

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

No annotations so description carries burden. Discloses default inclusion of journals/attachments and the context-bloat risk, guiding safe usage for large tickets.

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, front-loaded purpose, no fluff.

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 read tool with 5 params and no output schema, description covers key return elements (description, metadata, journals, attachments) and usage context; lacks explicit note on child issues/relations but 'full details' implies them.

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 100% gives baseline 3; description adds rationale for include_journals=False ('blow up your context') and recurring incident example, exceeding schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource and scope ('full details... including description, metadata, journals, attachments'). Distinguished from sibling search/wiki tools by focus on full issue history.

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?

Provides explicit use case ('understand the full history before updating') and a conditional flag for long histories. No explicit exclusions/alternatives, but context is clear.

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