get_issue_tool

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

With no annotations, the description's single sentence does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or error responses, which are important for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundant information.

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's low complexity and the presence of a complete output schema and parameter documentation, the brief description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from specifying the scope (e.g., 'from the specified repository') and any prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for repo, issue_number, and owner parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving a single GitHub issue by number. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GitHub issue'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that list or search 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_issues_tool, search_issues_tool). There are no explicit conditions or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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