get_issue_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not mention any caveats such as authentication requirements, response structure, error conditions, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the verb implies.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. While extremely short, it is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it might have earned a 5 with additional useful context.

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?

The tool is a simple get with an output schema present, so return format is covered. However, with no annotations and only a two-word description, the description fails to provide any usage context or behavioral nuances. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward retrieval but lacks the additional context that would make it complete (e.g., when to prefer this over list_issues_tool).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by referencing 'IID' in 'Get a single issue by its IID', which reinforces the purpose of issue_iid but adds nothing about project_id or their relationship. It does not compensate beyond the schema but is not deficient.

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 action: 'Get a single issue', identifying the resource (issue) and specifying the scope ('single by its IID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues_tool, which retrieves multiple issues, and aligns with the tool's name and required parameters.

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 like list_issues_tool (for multiple issues) or update_issue_tool (for modifications). The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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