issue_get

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full weight. Only states 'fetch', implying read-only, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or behavior when issue is missing. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Very concise, but could be slightly more informative without losing brevity. Front-loads the core action.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description is severely lacking. It omits return value structure, error scenarios, permissions, and default behavior for the optional repo parameter. Completely inadequate for a fetch tool with this level of support.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'issue number' and 'target repo' but doesn't explain that repo is optional, what format the repo should be, or the meaning of the integer parameter. Adds little beyond the schema's property 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?

Description states verb 'fetch', resource 'one generic issue', and identifiers 'issue number' and 'target repo'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like issue_list. However, 'generic issue' is slightly vague, and the repo parameter is not required, which is ambiguous with 'from a target repo'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as issue_list. No context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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