github_get_issue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'get details'. No mention of read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotations.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is minimal and to the point, earning a top score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose but omits context like return value structure, error handling, or usage prerequisites. This is borderline adequate for such a simple tool but could be improved.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the parameter names ('owner', 'repo', 'issue_number') are self-explanatory, reducing the need for extensive documentation. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema is clear enough for a simple tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and a clear resource ('a specific GitHub issue'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. No ambiguity and distinguishes from all siblings that deal with different domains (search, messaging, files, etc.).

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks exclusions or comparison to other tools. However, given that no sibling tool directly overlaps with retrieving issue details, the need for such guidance is reduced, making it minimally viable.

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